Measurement of the W -> lnu and Z/gamma* -> ll production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector
EEUROPEAN ORGANIZATION FOR NUCLEAR RESEARCH
CERN-PH-EP–2010-0377 Oct. 2010
Measurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections inproton-proton collisions at √ s = TeV with the ATLAS detector
The ATLAS Collaboration ∗ Abstract
First measurements of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ( (cid:96) = e , µ ) production cross sections in proton-proton collisions at √ s = W → (cid:96) ν and 179 Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) candidate events selectedfrom a data set corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 320 nb − . The measuredtotal W and Z / γ ∗ -boson production cross sections times the respective leptonic branching ratios forthe combined electron and muon channels are σ tot W · BR( W → (cid:96) ν ) = 9.96 ± ± ± σ tot Z / γ ∗ · BR( Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) = 0 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb (withinthe invariant mass window 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV). The W / Z cross-section ratio is measured to be11.7 ± ± W + and W − production cross sectionsand of the lepton charge asymmetry are reported. Theoretical predictions based on NNLO QCDcalculations are found to agree with the measurements. ∗ See Appendix for the list of collaboration members a r X i v : . [ h e p - e x ] O c t easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 1 Measurements of the inclusive production cross sections of the W and Z bosons at hadron colliders con-stitute an important test of the Standard Model. The theoretical calculations involve parton distributionfunctions (PDF) and different couplings of the partons to the weak bosons. They are affected by sig-nificant higher-order QCD corrections. Calculations of the inclusive W and Z production cross sectionshave been carried out at next-to-leading order (NLO) [1–3] and next-to-next-to leading order (NNLO) inperturbation theory [4–8].The production of W and Z bosons at hadron colliders was measured previously by the UA1 [9] andUA2 [10] experiments at √ s = 0.63 TeV at the CERN Sp¯pS and by the CDF [11–13] and D0 [14, 15]experiments at √ s = 1.8 TeV and √ s = 1.96 TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron proton-antiproton colliders.In contrast to proton-antiproton collisions, the cross sections for W + and W − production are expected tobe different in proton-proton collisions due to different valence quark distributions of the u and d quarks.Most recently, the RHIC collider experiments [16,17] have reported the first observation of W productionin proton-proton collisions at √ s = . W and Z bosons are expected to be produced abundantly at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) [18].The projected large dataset and the high LHC energy will allow for detailed measurements of theirproduction properties in a previously unexplored kinematic domain. These conditions, together with theproton-proton nature of the collisions, will provide new constraints on the parton distribution functionsand will allow for precise tests of perturbative QCD. Besides the measurements of the W and Z bosonproduction cross sections, the measurement of their ratio R and of the asymmetry between the W + and W − cross sections constitute important tests of the Standard Model. The ratio R can be measured with ahigher relative precision because both experimental and theoretical uncertainties partially cancel. Withlarger data sets this ratio can be used to provide constraints on the W -boson width Γ W [13].This paper describes the first measurement of the W + , W − and Z / γ ∗ boson production cross sections inproton-proton collisions at √ s = 7 TeV by the ATLAS [19] experiment at the LHC. The measurementsare based on data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of approximately 320 nb − . The inclusive Z / γ ∗ -production-cross section is measured within the mass range 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV. In addition tothe individual cross-section measurements, first measurements of the ratio R of the W to Z cross sectionsand of the W → (cid:96) ν charge asymmetry are presented. Throughout this paper the label “ Z ” refers to Z / γ ∗ .The paper is organized as follows: after a short description of the ATLAS detector, the data set and theMonte-Carlo samples in Sections 2 and 3, the identification of electrons, muons and the measurementof the transverse missing energy are discussed in Section 4. In Section 5, the selection of W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) candidates is presented. Section 6 is devoted to a detailed discussion of backgrounds in thesesamples. The measurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) cross sections and of their ratio is presented inSection 7 together with a comparison to theoretical predictions. The measurement of the W → (cid:96) ν chargeasymmetry is discussed in Section 8. The ATLAS detector [19] at the LHC comprises a thin superconducting solenoid surrounding the inner-detector and three large superconducting toroids arranged with an eight-fold azimuthal coil symmetryplaced around the calorimeters, forming the basis of the muon spectrometer.The Inner-Detector (ID) system is immersed in a 2 T axial magnetic field and provides tracking infor-mation for charged particles in a pseudorapidity range matched by the precision measurements of theelectromagnetic calorimeter; the silicon tracking detectors, pixel and silicon microstrip (SCT), cover the The ATLAS Collaborationpseudorapidity range | η | < . The highest granularity is achieved around the vertex region usingthe pixel detectors. The Transition Radiation Tracker (TRT), which surrounds the silicon detectors, en-ables track-following up to | η | = .
0. Electron identification information is provided by the detection oftransition radiation in the TRT straw tubes.The calorimeter system covers the pseudorapidity range | η | < .
9. It is based on two different detectortechnologies, with liquid argon (LAr) and scintillator-tiles as active media. The electromagnetic (EM)calorimeter, consisting of lead absorbers and liquid argon as the active material, is divided into one barrel( | η | < . . < | η | < . ∆ η × ∆ φ = 0.025 × η direction which extend over four cells in φ . A third layer measures the tails of very highenergy EM showers and helps in rejecting hadron showers. In the region | η | < .
8, a presampler detectorconsisting of a thin layer of LAr is used to correct for the energy lost by electrons, positrons, and photonsupstream of the calorimeter. The hadronic tile calorimeter is placed directly outside the EM calorimeterenvelope. This steel/scintillating-tile detector consists of a barrel covering the region | η | < .
0, and twoextended barrels in the range 0 . < | η | < .
7. The copper Hadronic End-cap Calorimeter (HEC), whichuses LAr as active material, consists of two independent wheels per end-cap (1 . < | η | < . | η | < .
7. Over most of the η -range, a precision measurement of the trackcoordinates in the principal bending direction of the magnetic field is provided by Monitored Drift Tubes(MDTs). At large pseudorapidities, Cathode Strip Chambers (CSCs) with higher granularity are usedin the innermost plane (station) over 2 . < | η | < .
7, to withstand the demanding rate and backgroundconditions expected with the LHC operation at the nominal luminosity. The muon trigger system, whichcovers the pseudorapidity range | η | < .
4, consists of Resistive Plate Chambers (RPCs) in the barrel( | η | < .
05) and Thin Gap Chambers (TGCs) in the end-cap regions (1 . < | η | < . | η | = W and Z analyses are providedin Section 3. The subsequent two levels, collectively known as the high-level trigger, are the Level-2(L2) trigger and the event filter. They provide the reduction to a final data-taking rate designed to beapproximately 200 Hz. The data were collected over a four-month period, from March to July 2010. Application of basicbeam, detector, and data-quality requirements resulted in total integrated luminosities of 315 nb − for The nominal interaction point is defined as the origin of the coordinate system, while the anti-clockwise beam directiondefines the z -axis and the x − y plane is transverse to the beam direction. The positive x -axis is defined as pointing from theinteraction point to the centre of the LHC ring and the positive y -axis is defined as pointing upwards. The azimuthal angle φ is measured around the beam axis and the polar angle θ is the angle from the beam axis. The pseudorapidity is defined as η = − lntan ( θ / ) . The distance ∆ R in the η − φ space is defined as ∆ R = (cid:112) ( ∆ η ) + ( ∆ φ ) . easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 3the W → e ν , 310 nb − for the W → µν , 316 nb − for the Z → ee , and 331 nb − for the Z → µ µ channels. The uncertainty on the absolute luminosity determination is ±
11% [21].Events in this analysis are selected using only the hardware-based L1 trigger, i.e. without use of the high-level trigger. The L1 calorimeter trigger selects photon and electron candidates within | η | < . ∆ η × ∆ φ = . × .
1. The calorimeter triggerused in this analysis accepts electron and photon candidates if the transverse energy from a cluster oftrigger towers is above approximately 10 GeV. The L1 muon trigger searches for patterns of hits within | η | < . p T muons originating from the interaction region. The algorithm requiresa coincidence of hits in the different trigger stations along a road which follows the path of a muon fromthe interaction point through the detector. The width of the road is related to the p T threshold to beapplied. The muon trigger used in this analysis corresponds to a threshold of approximately 6 GeV. Asa result of these trigger decisions, a total of 6 . × and 5 . × events are triggered in the electronand muon channels, respectively.In order to compare the data with theoretical expectations and to estimate the backgrounds from variousphysics processes, Monte-Carlo simulations were performed. For the W and Z signal processes, dedi-cated W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) signal samples were generated. For the backgrounds the following processeswere considered:– W → τν : this process is expected to contribute, in particular via leptonic tau decays, τ → (cid:96) νν , toboth electron and muon final states in the W analysis.– Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) : Z → µ µ decays with one muon outside of the muon-spectrometer acceptance generateapparent missing transverse energy and constitute an important background in the W → µν anal-ysis. Due to the larger η coverage of the calorimeter system, this effect is less severe for thecorresponding Z → ee decays in the W → e ν analysis.– Z → ττ : these decays contribute a smaller background to both the W and Z analyses via single ordouble leptonic tau decays.– t ¯ t production: the production of top pairs constitutes an additional background to both the W and Z analyses. The relative size, compared to the backgrounds from W and Z decays, depends on thechannel considered.– Jet production via QCD processes: the production of jets via QCD processes (referred to as “QCDbackground” in the following) is another important background contribution. It has significantcomponents from semi-leptonic decays of heavy quarks, hadrons misidentified as leptons and, inthe case of the electron channel, electrons from conversions. For the Z → µ µ analysis, dedi-cated b ¯ b and c ¯ c samples were generated in addition, to increase the statistics for these backgroundcomponents.An overview of all signal and background processes considered and of the generators used for the sim-ulation is given in Table 1. All signal and background samples were generated at √ s = W and Z processes and on the assigned uncertainties are presented inSection 7.6. For the t ¯ t production cross section, an uncertainty of ±
6% is assumed.For the QCD background, no reliable prediction can be obtained from a leading order Monte-Carlosimulation. For the comparisons of differential distributions to data, as presented in Section 5, this The ATLAS Collaboration
Physics process Generator σ · BR [nb] W → (cid:96) ν ( (cid:96) = e , µ ) PYTHIA [25] 10.46 ± W + → (cid:96) + ν ± W − → (cid:96) − ν ± Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ( m (cid:96)(cid:96) >
60 GeV) PYTHIA 0.99 ± W → τν PYTHIA 10.46 ± W → τν → (cid:96) ννν PYTHIA 3.68 ± Z / γ ∗ → ττ ( m (cid:96)(cid:96) >
60 GeV) PYTHIA 0.99 ± t ¯ t MC@NLO [26, 27], 0.16 ± e channel, ˆ p T >
15 GeV) PYTHIA 1.2 × LO [25]Dijet ( µ channel, ˆ p T > × LO [25] bb ( µ channel, ˆ p T >
18 GeV, p T ( µ ) >
15 GeV) PYTHIA 73 . cc ( µ channel, ˆ p T >
18 GeV, p T ( µ ) >
15 GeV) PYTHIA 28 . Table 1:
Signal and background Monte-Carlo samples as well as the generators used in the simulation. For eachsample the production cross section, multiplied by the relevant branching ratios (BR), to which the samples werenormalised is given. For the electroweak ( W and Z boson production) and for the t ¯ t production, contributions fromhigher order QCD corrections are included. The inclusive QCD jet and heavy quark cross sections are given atleading order (LO). These samples were generated with requirements on the transverse momentum of the partonsinvolved in the hard-scattering process, ˆ p T . All Monte-Carlo samples result in negligible statistical uncertainties,unless otherwise stated. background is normalised to data. However, for the final cross-section measurement, except for the Z → µ µ analysis, data-driven methods are used to determine the residual contributions of the QCDbackground to the final W and Z samples, as discussed in Section 6.During the period these data were recorded, the average pile-up varied from zero to about two extrainteractions per event, with most of the data being recorded with roughly one extra interaction per event.To account for this, the W → (cid:96) ν , Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) , and QCD-dijet Monte-Carlo samples were generated with onaverage two extra primary interactions and then weighted to the primary vertex multiplicity distributionobserved in the data.All data distributions in this paper are shown with statistical uncertainties only, based on Poisson statis-tics [24], unless otherwise stated. The reconstruction of both electrons and muons uses reconstructed charged tracks in the inner detector.A detailed description of the track reconstruction has already been presented in Ref. [32]. The innertracking system measures charged particle tracks at all φ over the pseudorapidity region | η | < The ATLAS standard electron reconstruction and identification algorithm [34] is designed to providevarious levels of background rejection for high identification efficiencies for calorimeter transverse en-easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 5ergy E T >
20 GeV, over the full acceptance of the inner-detector system. Electron reconstruction be-gins with a seed cluster of E T > . ∆ η × ∆ φ = . × . p T > ∆ η × ∆ φ = . × .
175 in the barrel calorimeter and 0 . × .
125 in the end-cap. The transverse energy of these electron candidates is obtained from the corresponding calorimeterclusters.The electron identification selections are based on criteria using calorimeter and tracker information andhave been optimised in 10 bins in η and 11 bins in E T . Three reference sets of requirements (“loose”,”medium”, and “tight”) have been chosen, providing progressively stronger jet rejection at the expenseof some identification efficiency loss. Each set adds additional constraints to the previous requirements:– “Loose”: this basic selection uses EM shower shape information from the second layer of the EMcalorimeter (lateral shower containment and shower width) and energy leakage into the hadroniccalorimeters as discriminant variables. This set of requirements provides high and uniform identi-fication efficiency but a low background rejection.– “Medium”: this selection provides additional rejection against hadrons by evaluating the energydeposit patterns in the first layer of the EM calorimeter (the shower width and the ratio of theenergy difference associated with the largest and second largest energy deposit over the sum ofthese energies), track quality variables (number of hits in the pixel and silicon trackers, transversedistance of closest approach to the primary vertex (transverse impact parameter)) and a cluster-track matching variable ( ∆ η between the cluster and the track extrapolated to the first layer of theEM calorimeter).– “Tight”: this selection further rejects charged hadrons and secondary electrons from conversionsby fully exploiting the electron identification potential of the ATLAS detector. It makes require-ments on the ratio of cluster energy to track momentum, on the number of hits in the TRT, and onthe ratio of high-threshold hits to the total number of hits in the TRT. Electrons from conversionsare rejected by requiring at least one hit in the first layer of the pixel detector. A conversion-flagging algorithm is also used to further reduce this contribution. The impact-parameter require-ment applied in the medium selection is further tightened at this level. Z → ee and W → e ν signal Monte-Carlo samples were used to estimate the medium and tight elec-tron identification efficiencies within the relevant kinematic and geometrical acceptance ( E T >
20 GeVwithin the range | η | < .
47 and excluding the transition region between the barrel and end-cap calorime-ters, 1 . < | η | < . E T >
20 GeV within the relevant kinematic and geometrical acceptance are found to be 5700 and 77000,respectively.Given the limited available statistics of Z → ee decays, the electron performance cannot yet be evalu-ated in detail with collision data. The overall uncertainty on the electron energy scale is estimated tobe ± The TRT readout discriminates at two thresholds. The lower one is set to register minimum-ionizing particles and thehigher one is intended for the detection of transition radiation.
The ATLAS CollaborationThe material in front of the electromagnetic calorimeter affects the reconstruction and identificationefficiencies as well as the correct identification of the charge of the reconstructed electron. This has beenstudied in detail with dedicated simulations including additional material in the inner detector and in frontof the electromagnetic calorimeter. The amount of additional material which might be present is currentlybest constrained by track efficiency measurements in minimum bias data [32] and studies of photonconversions. The probability for wrongly identifying the charge of the electron depends strongly on theamount of material it traverses in the inner detector and therefore on η . It is expected to be ( . ± . ) %for the medium electron identification cuts (this affects the selection of Z -boson candidates as discussedin Section 6.3) and ( . ± . ) % for the tight identification cuts (this affects the measurement of the W -boson asymmetry as discussed in Section 8).The most precise current estimate of the electron identification efficiencies is obtained from a sample of W → e ν candidates which were selected using tight cuts on the missing transverse energy and the topol-ogy of the event and requiring only that an electron candidate be reconstructed through the very loosematch between a track and an electromagnetic cluster mentioned above. The residual background fromQCD dijets was estimated using a calorimeter isolation technique similar to that described in Section 6.1.The results obtained for the medium efficiency were 0 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) compared to 0.943from the Monte Carlo. For the tight efficiency, the corresponding results were 0 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) compared to 0.749 from the Monte Carlo. These measurements confirm that, within thecurrent uncertainties, the electron identification efficiencies are well modelled by the simulation and areused to evaluate the systematic uncertainties discussed in Section 7.2. The ATLAS muon identification and reconstruction algorithms take advantage of multiple sub-detectortechnologies which provide complementary approaches and cover pseudorapidities up to 2.7 [35].The stand-alone muon reconstruction is based entirely on muon-spectrometer information, independentlyof whether or not the muon-spectrometer track is also reconstructed in the inner detector. The muonreconstruction is initiated locally in a muon chamber by a search for straight line track segments in thebending plane. Hits in the precision chambers are used and the segment candidates are required to pointto the centre of ATLAS. When available, the hit coordinate φ in the non-bending plane measured by thetrigger detectors is associated to the segment. Two or more track segments in different muon stationsare combined to form a muon track candidate using three-dimensional tracking in the magnetic field.The track parameters ( p T , η , φ , transverse and longitudinal distances of closest approach to the primaryvertex) obtained from the muon spectrometer track fit are extrapolated to the interaction point taking intoaccount both multiple scattering and energy loss in the calorimeters. For the latter, the reconstructionutilises either a parameterisation or actual measurements of calorimeter energy losses, together with aparameterisation of energy loss in the inert material. The average muon energy loss in the calorimetersis 3 GeV. The stand-alone muon reconstruction algorithms use the least-squares formalism to fit tracksin the muon spectrometer, with most material effects directly integrated into the χ function.The combined muon reconstruction associates a stand-alone muon-spectrometer track to an inner-detectortrack. The association is performed using a χ -test, defined from the difference between the respectivetrack parameters weighted by their combined covariance matrices. The parameters are evaluated at thepoint of closest approach to the beam axis. The combined track parameters are derived either from astatistical combination of the two tracks or from a refit of the full track. To validate the results presentedin this paper, these two independent reconstruction chains were exercised and good agreement was ob-served. The results presented here are based on the statistical combination of muon-spectrometer andinner-detector measurement.Detailed studies of the muon performance in collision data were performed. The muon momentum scaleand resolution were extracted by fitting the invariant mass distribution of the Z candidates describedeasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 7in Section 5.4 to a Breit-Wigner function convolved with a Gaussian function. The fitted mean valueindicates that the muon-momentum scale is within ±
1% around the nominal value. From the fitted widththe muon-momentum resolution, for muons from Z decays, is extracted to be ( ± ) % in the barrel and ( ± ) % in the end-cap regions. These results are consistent with those obtained from the single muonstudies reported in Ref. [36].Two complementary approaches were used to measure the muon reconstruction efficiency in data. Thefirst technique determines the efficiency of isolated combined muons relative to inner-detector tracksmatched to muon hits in the muon spectrometer, resulting in an efficiency measured in data of 0 . ± . ± Z analysis(see Section 5.4). The second muon of the Z candidate is then selected as an inner-detector track withopposite charge. The invariant mass of the muon-track pair is required to be within 10 GeV of thenominal Z mass. The combined muon efficiency, measured relative to this sample of tracks, is 0.933 ± ± The transverse missing energy ( E missT ) reconstruction used in the electron channel is based on calorimeterinformation. It relies on a cell-based algorithm which sums the electromagnetic-scale energy depositsof calorimeter cells inside three-dimensional topological clusters [37]. The EM scale corresponds tothe energy deposited in the calorimeter calculated under the assumption that all processes are purelyelectromagnetic in nature. These clusters are then corrected to take into account the different responseto hadrons than to electrons or photons, dead material losses and out of cluster energy losses [38]. Thesetopological clusters are built around energy E > σ noise seeds, where σ noise is the Gaussian width of thecell energy distribution in randomly triggered events, by iteratively gathering neighbouring cells with E > σ noise and, in a final step, by adding all direct neighbours of these accumulated secondary cells.For the electron channel, the components of the missing transverse energy are calculated by summingover all topological cluster cell energy components E ix , y : E miss x , y | e = − ∑ i E ix , y . (1)The E missT used in the muon channel is calculated by adding the reconstructed momenta of isolated andnon-isolated muons measured in the pseudorapidity range | η | < . E miss x , y | µ = − ∑ i E ix , y − isolated ∑ k p kx , y − non − isolated ∑ j p jx , y , (2)where non-isolated muons are those within a distance ∆ R ≤ . p T of an isolatedmuon is determined from the combined measurement of the inner detector and muon spectrometer, asexplained in Section 4.3. The energy lost by an isolated muon in the calorimeters is removed from thecalorimeter term. For a non-isolated muon, the energy lost in the calorimeter cannot be separated fromthe nearby jet energy. The muon-spectrometer measurement of the muon momentum after energy lossin the calorimeter is therefore used, unless there is a significant mismatch between the spectrometer andcombined measurements. In this case the combined measurement minus the parameterised energy lossin the calorimeter is used. For values of the pseudorapidity outside the fiducial volume of the inner The ATLAS Collaborationdetector (2 . < | η | < . E missT result mainly from uncertainties on the energyscale of topological clusters. From a comparison of the momentum and energy measurement of chargedparticles [39], the topological cluster energy scale is known to ±
20% for p T ∼
500 MeV and ±
5% athigh p T . Other contributions result from uncertainties due to the imperfect modelling of the overall E missT response (low energy hadrons) and resolution, modelling of the underlying event and pile-up effects. W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) candidates Collision candidates are selected by requiring a primary vertex with at least three tracks, consistentwith the beam-spot position. To reduce contamination from cosmic-ray or beam-halo events, the muonanalysis requires the primary vertex position along the beam axis to be within 15 cm of the nominalposition (this primary vertex distribution has a measured longitudinal RMS of 6.2 cm).An analysis of a high-statistics sample of minimum-bias events has shown that events can occasionallycontain very localised high-energy calorimeter deposits not originating from the proton-proton collision,but e.g. from sporadic discharges in the hadronic end-cap calorimeter or, more rarely, coherent noisein the electromagnetic calorimeter. Cosmic-ray muons undergoing a hard bremsstrahlung are also apotential source of localised energy deposits uncorrelated with the primary proton-proton collisions. Theoccurrence of these events is very rare but can potentially impact significantly the E missT measurementby creating high-energy tails [40]. To remove such events, dedicated cleaning requirements have beendeveloped using a minimum-bias event sample. Using Monte-Carlo simulation, it was verified that thesecriteria remove less than 0.1% of minimum-bias events, 0.004% of W → (cid:96) ν , and 0.01% of dijet events.For the electron channel only, the event is rejected if the candidate electromagnetic cluster is located inany problematic region of the EM calorimeter. Due to hardware problems [20], the signal cannot be readout from ∼
2% of the EM calorimeter cells.
Electron candidates selected with the identification level “tight” for the W analysis and “medium” forthe Z analysis (according to the algorithm described in Section 4.2) are required to have a cluster E T >
20 GeV within the range | η | < .
47, excluding the transition region between the barrel and end-cap calorimeters (1 . < | η | < . p T >
20 GeV and a muon-spectrometer trackwith p T >
10 GeV within the range | η | < .
4. To increase the robustness against track reconstructionmismatches, the difference between the inner-detector and muon-spectrometer p T corrected for the meanenergy loss in upstream material, is required to be less than 15 GeV. The difference between the z posi-tion of the muon track extrapolated to the beam line and the z coordinate of the primary vertex is requiredto be less than 1 cm.Figure 1 shows the E T and p T spectra of these “tight” electron and combined muon candidates and com-pares these to the signal and background Monte-Carlo samples described in Section 3. Comparisons ofthe dijet Monte-Carlo distributions to equivalent data distributions have shown that the dijet Monte Carlofor this high- p T lepton selection over-estimates the amount of background by a factor of approximately2.4 for the electron channel and a factor of 1.6 for the muon channel. The difference between thesevalues is likely explained by the different composition of the QCD background in the two analyses. Forthe electron case, this normalisation factor is obtained by comparing data and Monte-Carlo samples ofhigh transverse-momentum electron candidates which are dominated by QCD background. For the muoneasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 9 [GeV] T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / G e V
10 [GeV] T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / G e V ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ee → Z ντ → W ττ → Z tt (a)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110
10 [GeV] T p20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 1:
Calorimeter cluster E T of “tight” electron candidates (a) and combined p T of muon candidates (b) fordata and Monte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and various background components. The verticalline in (b) indicates the analysis cut. The transverse momentum region between 15 and 20 GeV of the muon sampleis used in the estimation of the QCD background (see Section 6.2). case, this normalisation factor is obtained from a non-isolated muon data sample and is then applied tothe isolated muon sample used in this analysis.Unless otherwise stated, all Monte-Carlo distributions shown in this paper have been normalised to theintegrated luminosity of the data as described in Section 3, using the cross sections as given in Table 1and taking into account these scale factors for the QCD background. At this stage of the selection, theevent samples are dominated by QCD background. These distributions show agreement in shape betweendata and Monte-Carlo simulation. The use of an isolation parameter to enhance the signal-to-background ratio was investigated. Separateisolation requirements must be considered for the electron and muon channels, since the electron canundergo bremsstrahlung, while a muon is primarily defined by its track.A calorimeter-based isolation parameter defined as the total calorimeter transverse energy in a cone of ∆ R < . E T , is considered for theelectron channel. This variable is exploited for background estimations in this channel, but is not used inthe event selection.In the muon analysis, a track-based isolation defined as the sum of the transverse momenta of tracks with p T > ∆ R < . p T ofthe muon, is considered. An isolation requirement of ∑ p IDT / p T < . W candidates, this requirement rejects over 84%of the expected QCD background while keeping (98.4 ± Additional requirements beyond those in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 are imposed to better discriminate W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) events from background events. A summary of all requirements is as follows:0 The ATLAS Collaboration [GeV] Tmiss
E0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V
10 [GeV]
Tmiss
E0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ντ → W ee → Z ττ → Z tt (a)
10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120110
10 [GeV] missT
E0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 2:
Distributions of the missing transverse energy, E missT , of electron (a) and muon (b) candidates for data andMonte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and various background components. – An electron with E T >
20 GeV or a combined muon with p T >
20 GeV;For the W → e ν analysis, events containing an additional “medium” electron are vetoed. If morethan one combined muon candidate is reconstructed, the one with the highest p T is chosen.– Isolation for the muon channel: ∑ p IDT / p T < . W analysis only:– Missing transverse energy E missT >
25 GeV;– Transverse mass of the lepton- E missT system, m T >
40 GeV;The transverse mass is defined as m T = (cid:113) p (cid:96) T E missT ( − cos ∆ φ ) , where ∆ φ is the azimuthalseparation between the directions of the lepton and the missing transverse energy.– For the Z analysis only:– A pair of oppositely-charged leptons (each lepton with p T >
20 GeV) of the same flavour;– Invariant mass window of lepton pair: 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV;– Veto on events with three or more “medium” electrons (for the Z → ee analysis).Figure 2 shows the E missT distributions of electron and muon candidates passing the requirements de-scribed above, except the E missT and m T criteria. Both distributions indicate that applying a minimumrequirement on E missT greatly enhances the W signal over the expected background. True W → (cid:96) ν eventsin the Monte Carlo are predominantly at high E missT due to the escaping neutrino in the event. Althoughsome of the QCD background events may also have neutrinos in their final state, they mostly populatethe regions of small E missT . Figures 3 and 4 show the m T distributions without and with the requirementof E missT >
25 GeV.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 11 [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V
10 [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ντ → W ee → Z ττ → Z tt (a)
10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120110
10 [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 3:
Distributions of the transverse mass, m T , of the electron-E missT system (a) and muon-E missT system (b) withoutan E missT requirement. The data are compared to Monte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and variousbackground components. [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V
10 [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ντ → W tt ee → Z ττ → Z ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ (a)
10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120110
10 [GeV] T m0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 4:
Distributions of the transverse mass, m T , of the electron-E missT system (a) and muon-E missT system (b) witha requirement of E missT >
25 GeV. The data are compared to Monte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signaland various background components. W and Z candidates after final selection Table 2 summarises the number of W → (cid:96) ν candidates remaining after each major requirement in therespective analyses. A total of 1069 candidates (637 e + and 432 e − ) pass all requirements in the electronchannel and 1181 candidates (710 µ + and 471 µ − ) in the muon channel. Figure 5 shows the electroncluster E T and muon combined p T of the lepton candidates, while Fig. 6 shows the p T spectrum of the W → (cid:96) ν candidates. Both channels demonstrate a clear W signal over an almost negligible background.2 The ATLAS CollaborationRequirement Number of candidates W → e ν W → µν Trigger 6 . × . × Lepton: e with E T >
20 GeV or µ with p T >
20 GeV 4003 7052Muon isolation: ∑ p ID T / p T < . E missT >
25 GeV 1116 1220 m T >
40 GeV 1069 1181
Table 2:
Number of W → e ν and W → µν candidates in data, remaining after each major requirement. [GeV] T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ντ → W ee → Z ττ → Z tt (a)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 10002040608010012014016018020020 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100020406080100120140160180200 [GeV] T p20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 5:
Distributions of the electron cluster E T (a) and muon p T (b) of the W candidates after final selection. Therequirements of E missT >
25 GeV and m T >
40 GeV are applied. The data are compared to Monte-Carlo simulation,broken down into the signal and various background components.
Requirement Number of candidates Z → ee Z → µ µ Trigger 6 . × . × Two leptons ( ee or µ µ with E T ( p T ) >
20 GeV) 83 144Muon isolation: ∑ p ID T / p T < . ee or µ µ pair: 78 11766 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV 70 109
Table 3:
Number of Z → ee and Z → µ µ candidates in data, remaining after each major requirement. Table 3 summarises the number of Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) candidates remaining after each major requirement has beenimposed. A total of 70 candidates pass all requirements in the electron channel and 109 candidates inthe muon channel, within the invariant mass window 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV. Figure 7 shows the electroncluster E T and muon combined p T of the lepton candidates. The breakdown of the various backgroundcontributions are also shown in this figure. Due to the small size of the backgrounds in both channels,backgrounds are not shown in the subsequent distributions for the Z analysis. Figure 8 shows the p T spectrum of the Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) candidates. The invariant mass distribution of the lepton pairs is presentedin Fig. 9. The observed resolution degradation in the muon data compared to design expectations iscurrently under investigation. It has been taken into account in the systematic uncertainties of the cross-easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 13 [GeV] TW p0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V TW p0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V = 7 TeV )sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ντ → W ee → Z ττ → Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ (a) WT p0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / . G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( nm fi W QCD nt fi W mm fi Z tt fi Z tt
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310 nb (cid:242) (b)
Fig. 6:
Distributions of the transverse momentum p T of the W candidates in the electron channel (a) and muonchannel (b) after final selection. The requirements of E missT >
25 GeV and m T >
40 GeV are applied. The data arecompared to Monte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and various background components. [GeV] T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110120 E n t r i e s / G e V -2 -1
10 110 = 7 TeV)sData 2010 (ee → ZQCD ττ→ Z ν e → Wtt
ATLAS -1 L dt=316 nb ∫ [GeV] T E20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110120 E n t r i e s / G e V -2 -1
10 110 (a)
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 -3 -2 -1 -3 -2 -1
10 [GeV] T p20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 E n t r i e s / G e V -3 -2 -1 -1 L dt = 331 nb ∫ ATLAS =7 TeV)sData 2010 ( µµ → Z tt ττ → Z QCD νµ → W (b) Fig. 7:
Distributions of the electron cluster E T (a) and muon p T (b) of the Z candidate leptons after final selec-tion. The data are compared to Monte-Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and various backgroundcomponents. section measurement.4 The ATLAS Collaboration [GeV] ZT p0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 (ee → Z ATLAS -1 L dt=316 nb ∫ [GeV] ZT p0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V (a) [GeV] ZT p0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V ZT p0 20 40 60 80 100 120 E n t r i e s / G e V -1 L dt = 331 nb ∫ ATLAS =7 TeV)sData 2010 ( µµ → Z (b) Fig. 8:
Distributions of the transverse momentum p T of the Z candidates in the electron channel (a) and muonchannel (b) after final selection. The data are compared to the expectations from Monte-Carlo simulation. [GeV] ee m60 70 80 90 100 110 120 E n t r i e s / G e V = 7 TeV)sData 2010 (ee → Z ATLAS -1 L dt=316 nb ∫ [GeV] ee m60 70 80 90 100 110 120 E n t r i e s / G e V (a) [GeV] µµ m60 70 80 90 100 110 120 E n t r i e s / G e V -1 L dt = 331 nb ∫ ATLAS =7 TeV)sData 2010 ( µµ → Z (b) Fig. 9:
Distributions of the invariant mass m (cid:96)(cid:96) of Z candidates in the electron (a) and muon (b) channels. The dataare compared to the expectations from Monte-Carlo simulation. easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 15 W and Z boson signals and backgrounds In this section, estimates of the various background components in the W and Z -candidate samples,and background-subtracted signal numbers, are presented. Except for the Z → µ µ final state, the QCDcomponents of the backgrounds were estimated from the data. The electroweak and tt components wereobtained for all channels from Monte-Carlo simulation. W → e ν channel The expected contributions from the W → τν , Z → ee and Z → ττ processes were estimated to be 25.9,1.9, and 1.6 events, respectively, while from tt production 4.1 events are expected.The QCD background was estimated using the distribution of the missing transverse energy E missT asmeasured in data. Events were selected by applying all cuts used in the W selection, except the E missT cutat 25 GeV. The resulting distribution is displayed in Fig. 10. The signal and background components inthis sample were obtained from a binned maximum likelihood template fit. The shapes of the W → e ν signal and of the dominant W → τν background were taken from Monte-Carlo simulation, whereas theshape of the QCD background was determined from data.The background template was obtained by using the W selection, but not applying all electron identifica-tion requirements and reversing some of the requirements in the “tight” electron identification. In orderto suppress the residual contribution from W → e ν signal events and to obtain an essentially signal-freesample, isolated candidates were rejected. Using a high-statistics QCD-dijet Monte-Carlo sample, it wasverified that these requirements produce a background template similar in shape to the background ex-pected from the W selection. The result of the fit to the data is shown in Fig. 10. It provides a backgroundestimate in the signal region ( E missT >
25 GeV) of N QCD = ± E missT (0–25 GeV and 15–100 GeV) were considered as fit ranges. Based on these studies, the systematicuncertainty on the QCD background was estimated to be ±
10 events.As an alternative estimate, the calorimeter isolation variable, ∑ ∆ R < . i E i T / E T , as defined in Section 5.3,was used as discriminating variable. Due to the limited statistics and the few background events, thefit was performed after applying the “loose” instead of the “tight” electron identification, while the re-quirements on E missT and m T were kept. Using this method, the number of QCD background events wasestimated to be 48 . ± . ( stat ) . The large error results from the large uncertainty on the estimation ofthe jet rejection factor for the “tight” requirement with respect to the “loose” requirement. As a furthercross-check the background was also estimated from the dijet Monte-Carlo simulation, including thenormalisation factor discussed in Section 5.2, and was found to be 30 . ± . ( stat ) events, which is inagreement with the estimates presented above. W → µν channel For the muon channel, the expected contributions from Z → µ µ , W → τν , and Z → ττ decays are 38.4,33.6, and 1.4 events, respectively, while the tt contribution is expected to be 4.2 events.The QCD background is primarily composed of heavy-quark decays, with smaller contributions frompion and kaon decays and hadrons faking muons. Given the large uncertainty in the dijet cross sectionand the difficulty to properly simulate fake prompt muons, the QCD background has been derived fromdata using the two methods described in the following.In the baseline method, the QCD background was estimated from a comparison of the number of events6 The ATLAS Collaboration [GeV] missT E0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / G e V ATLAS -1 L dt =315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( ντ → + W ν e → W QCD (data template) [GeV] missT
E0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 E n t r i e s / G e V Fig. 10:
The distribution of E missT after applying all W selection cuts, except the E missT cut. The data are showntogether with the results of a template fit for signal (including the dominant W → τν electroweak backgroundcontribution) and the QCD background. The dashed line indicates the cut on E missT , as applied in the W analysis. seen in data ( N iso ) after the full W selection, to the number of events observed ( N loose ) if the muonisolation requirement is not applied. The number of events in the two samples can be expressed as: N loose = N nonQCD + N QCD N iso = ε isononQCD N nonQCD + ε isoQCD N QCD , (3)where N nonQCD includes the W signal and the background from the other, non-QCD, physics processesand ε isononQCD and ε isoQCD denote the corresponding efficiencies of the muon isolation requirement for thetwo event classes. If these efficiencies are known, the equations can be solved for N QCD . The muonisolation efficiency for non-QCD events was measured in the data Z → µ µ sample, while the efficiencyfor QCD events was estimated from a sample of muons with transverse momenta in the range of 15 -20 GeV, which is dominated by dijet events (see Fig. 1(b)). The efficiency factor was extrapolated tohigher p T values relevant for the W -signal selection using Monte-Carlo simulation. This method yieldsa background estimate in the W signal region of 21 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) events. The systematicuncertainty is dominated by the uncertainty on the isolation efficiency for QCD events.This estimate was cross-checked using a method where a similarity relationship in the plane of E missT versus lepton isolation was exploited [41]. The plane was divided into four separate regions and thenumber of background events in the signal region (high E missT and low values of the isolation variable)was estimated from non-isolated events at high E missT by applying the corresponding scale factor observedat low E missT . The calculation was corrected for the contributions from the signal and the electroweakbackgrounds and takes into account the correlation between the two variables, as predicted by Monte-Carlo simulation. This method yields a background estimate of 13 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) events, inagreement with the baseline estimate.As a further cross-check the background was also estimated from the dijet Monte-Carlo simulation, afterapplying the normalisation factor discussed in Section 5.2, and was found to be 9 . ± . ( stat ) , which isin agreement with the estimates presented above.The muon channel is also subject to background contamination from cosmic-ray muons that overlap intime with a collision event. Looking at cosmic-ray muons from non-collision bunches and events thatpass the full W selection but fail the primary vertex selection, this background component was estimatedto be 1 . ± . W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 17 Z → ee channel Within the invariant mass window 66 < m ee <
116 GeV, the contributions from the W → e ν , Z → ττ ,and tt processes were determined to be 0.11, 0.06, and 0.10 events, respectively, from the Monte-Carlosimulation.A data-driven estimate of the QCD background was made. The lepton requirement was relaxed from“medium” to “loose” (as described in Section 4.2) and the invariant-mass distribution of the resultingelectron-positron pairs was used as a template. A fit consisting of a Breit-Wigner convolved with aGaussian function, to model the signal, and a second-order polynomial, to model the background, wasmade to the mass distribution within the mass window 50 < m ee <
130 GeV. The number of looseelectron background candidate events within the mass window 66 < m ee <
116 GeV was estimated tobe 48.5 ± . ± . ( stat ) and was then used to estimate the expected number of lepton pairswhich both pass the nominal Z → ee requirements. By applying this data-derived rejection factor toeach lepton in this “loose” pair, a QCD-background estimate totalling 0 . ± . ( stat ) events in theopposite-charge distribution within the Z -mass window was derived. This same procedure was appliedto the Z → ee and corresponding background Monte-Carlo samples, resulting in an estimated QCDbackground of 0 . ± . ( stat ) events, in agreement with the data-derived result.A systematic uncertainty on the number of background events within the invariant mass window wasassessed by selecting pairs of candidate leptons of varying levels of electron identification, e.g. pairs oflepton candidates before the “loose” selection, one “loose” and one “medium” lepton candidate, and us-ing the corresponding rejection factors measured from the data. The fit stability was verified by changingthe bin size of the invariant mass distribution and replacing the second-order polynomial function by afirst-order one. The systematic uncertainties of the rejection factors were evaluated by exploring theirkinematic dependencies as well as the background composition and signal contamination of the samplesused to derive these factors at the various levels of electron identification. The total estimated QCDbackground within the invariant mass window 66 < m ee <
116 GeV is 0 . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( sys ) .The number of same-charge lepton pairs that otherwise satisfy all other requirements is a good indicatorof the level of background in the selection. In the electron channel, three same-charge lepton pairssatisfy all Z -boson selection requirements within the invariant mass window. This is in agreement withthe expectation based on Monte-Carlo simulation (see Section 4.2) from which 2.3 same-charge leptonpairs are expected from Z → ee decays. In addition 0.9 events are expected from QCD background. Z → µ µ channel Within the invariant mass window 66 < m µµ <
116 GeV, the contributions from tt , Z → ττ , and W → µν are expected to be 0.11, 0.09, and 0.01 events, respectively.For this channel, also the QCD background was determined from Monte-Carlo simulation and 0.04events are predicted from a simulation of b ¯ b production. Given the large uncertainty on the predictionof absolute rates from Monte-Carlo simulation, a 100% uncertainty is assigned to this estimate. Thisis considered to be a conservative assumption because the QCD background to both the single and di-muon samples was found to be overestimated by the same factor of about 1.6. An estimate of the QCDbackground from data is still limited by the statistical uncertainty, e.g. no same-charge muon pair wasfound to satisfy all Z -boson selection requirements in the invariant mass window considered and onlyfew events are observed reversing the isolation requirement. Compared to the contributions describedabove, all other background sources are negligible.8 The ATLAS Collaboration (cid:96) Observed Background Background Background-subtractedcandidates (EW + tt ) (QCD) signal N sigW e +
637 18.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± e −
432 14.7 ± ± ± ± ± ± e ± ± ± ± ± ± ± µ +
710 42 . ± . ± . . ± . ± . . ± . ± . µ −
471 35 . ± . ± . . ± . ± . . ± . ± . µ ± . ± . ± . . ± . ± . . ± . ± . Table 4:
Numbers of observed candidate events for the W → (cid:96) ν channel, electroweak ( W → τν , Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) , Z → ττ )plus tt , and QCD background events, as well as background-subtracted signal events. For the muon channel, theQCD background also contains a small cosmic-ray component. For the electron channel, the QCD background isassumed to be charge independent. The background fits were also performed separately for W + and W − productionand were found to agree within uncertainties. The first uncertainty is statistical. The second uncertainty representsthe systematics (as described in the text). In addition to what is quoted in this table, a ±
11% uncertainty on theluminosity determination is applicable to the electroweak plus tt backgrounds. (cid:96) Observed Background Background Background-subtractedcandidates (EW + tt ) (QCD) signal N sigZ e ±
70 0 . ± . ± .
03 0 . ± . ± .
41 68 . ± . ± . µ ±
109 0 . ± . ± .
01 0 . ± . ± .
04 108 . ± . ± . Table 5:
Numbers of observed candidate events for the Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) channel, electroweak ( W → (cid:96) ν , Z → ττ ) plus tt ,and QCD background events, as well as background-subtracted signal events. The first uncertainty is statistical.The second uncertainty represents the systematics (as described in the text). In addition to what is quoted in thistable, a ±
11% uncertainty on the luminosity determination is applicable to the electroweak plus tt backgrounds. W and Z candidate events The numbers of observed candidate events for the W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) channels, the estimated back-ground events from both the QCD processes and electroweak plus tt processes and the number ofbackground-subtracted signal events are summarised in Tables 4 and 5 together with their statistical andsystematic uncertainties. The systematic uncertainties receive contributions from experimental system-atic uncertainties (see Section 7.2), from theoretical uncertainties on the predicted cross sections for W , Z and t ¯ t production (see Sections 3 and 7.6), and from uncertainties on the parton distribution functions(see Section 7.4). The statistical component of the background uncertainty is included in the systematicuncertainty of the background-subtracted signal. The luminosity determination uncertainty of ±
11% isused in all channels but is only applicable to the electroweak and tt backgrounds as they are determinedfrom Monte-Carlo simulation. The resulting correlation of the luminosity systematic uncertainty is fullytaken into account in the calculation of the cross sections in Section 7.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 19 The production cross sections for the W and Z bosons times the branching ratios for decays into leptonscan be expressed as: σ tot W ( Z ) · BR ( W ( Z ) → (cid:96) ν ( (cid:96)(cid:96) )) = N sig W ( Z ) A W ( Z ) · C W ( Z ) · L W ( Z ) , (4)where– N sig W and N sig Z denote the numbers of background-subtracted signal events passing the selectioncriteria of the analyses in the W and Z channels, as defined in Section 5.4.– A W and A Z denote the acceptances for the W and Z -boson decays under consideration, defined asthe fraction of decays satisfying the geometrical and kinematical constraints at the generator level(fiducial acceptance). These quantities can only be determined from Monte-Carlo simulations andare defined here before the decay leptons emit photons via QED final state radiation.– C W and C Z denote the ratios between the total number of generated events which pass the finalselection requirements after reconstruction and the total number of generated events within thefiducial acceptance. These correction factors include the efficiencies for triggering, reconstructing,and identifying the W and Z -boson decays falling within the acceptance.– L W and L Z denote the integrated luminosities for the channels of interest.The resulting cross sections, as defined by Eq. (4), define measured total inclusive cross sections. Forthe W boson they are measured separately for W + , W − and W production. The total cross sections aredenoted as σ tot W + , σ tot W − and σ tot W . The corresponding Z cross section in the invariant mass range 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV is referred to as σ tot Z .These total cross sections are derived from the measurements of the cross sections in the fiducial region,which are denoted as fiducial cross sections σ fid W ( Z ) . They are related to the total cross sections via σ fid W ( Z ) · BR ( W ( Z ) → (cid:96) ν ( (cid:96)(cid:96) )) = σ tot W ( Z ) · BR ( W ( Z ) → (cid:96) ν ( (cid:96)(cid:96) )) · A W ( Z ) = N sig W ( Z ) C W ( Z ) · L W ( Z ) . (5)By definition, no acceptance correction factors are needed for the measurement of the fiducial crosssections. Therefore these cross sections are not affected by significant theoretical uncertainties. Hence,future improvements on the predictions of A W and A Z can be used to extract improved total cross-sectionmeasurements. Cross-section results in this paper are presented below for both the electron and muonchannels as well as for their combination. C W and C Z The central values of the correction factors C W and C Z are computed using Monte-Carlo simulation. Onlyin the case of the trigger efficiencies for muons, corrections determined from data are applied. To assessthe uncertainties affecting these factors, the following decomposition is used: C W = ε W event · α W reco · ε W lep · ε W trig (6) C Z = ε Z event · α Z reco · ( ε Z lep ) · [ − ( − ε Z trig ) ] , ε event ), e.g. primary vertex require-ments, lepton reconstruction and identification efficiencies ( ε lep ) and the trigger efficiency with respect toselected lepton candidates ( ε trig ). The exact definitions of these terms for electron and muon final statesare given below in the respective subsections. The factor α reco accounts for all differences observedbetween the efficiencies of applying the kinematic and geometrical cuts at generator level and recon-struction level. It includes for example effects due to the detector resolution on the lepton transversemomenta/energies and on the missing transverse energy. This factor also includes basic reconstructionefficiencies. The choice mentioned above of calculating the acceptance factors for leptons before theyemit final-state radiation of photons also affects this correction factor in a significant way, in particularfor electron final states. Finally, this factor includes migration and combinatorial effects and thereforemay have values larger than unity. For electrons, the efficiency of the L1 trigger with its nominal threshold of 10 GeV was measured to beclose to 100%, using minimum-bias data and samples obtained with lower-threshold electron triggers atlower luminosities.The term ε lep refers to the “tight” and “medium” electron identification efficiencies for the W and Z selection, respectively. They are defined with respect to all reconstructed electron candidates and weredetermined from Monte-Carlo simulation. A strong E T and η dependence is observed for these efficien-cies, which arises mainly from material interactions in the inner detector. It is a significant source ofsystematic uncertainty for C W and C Z .This uncertainty was evaluated by combining the results from dedicated simulations, including addi-tional material in the inner detector and in front of the electromagnetic calorimeter, with those obtainedfrom direct measurements of the efficiencies from data. These measurements were performed with lim-ited statistical precision using as probes unbiased electrons selected together with a well identified tagelectron in Z → ee candidate events, and with better accuracy using as probes unbiased electrons in se-lected W → e ν candidate events with large and isolated E missT , as discussed in Section 4.2. All thesedirect measurements are in agreement with the nominal values, within the estimated overall systematicuncertainties quoted in Table 6 of 5.2% and 4.2%, for the “tight” and “medium” electron identificationefficiencies, respectively.The factor α reco includes in addition to the electron and E missT resolution effects the basic reconstructionefficiency, e.g. the probability for an electron that an electromagnetic cluster in the calorimeter is recon-structed in a fiducial region of the detector and is loosely matched to a reconstructed track. This includeslosses of leptons due to imperfect regions of the detector within the geometrical acceptance. In the caseof Z → ee candidates, the value of α reco is significantly lower than for W → e ν candidates because bothelectrons must fall outside the imperfect regions of the detector and also because 3.3% of the Z → ee candidates fail the requirement of a pair of oppositely charged leptons, as discussed in Section 6.3.The central values as well as the relative uncertainties of the efficiencies and of α reco are summarised forboth W → e ν and Z → ee final states in Table 6. For the muon channels, the trigger efficiency was measured in data relative to reconstructed muons, usinga control sample selected with an independent jet trigger. Combined reconstructed muons above 20 GeVare selected by applying the same criteria as adopted for the W selection. Tracks are then extrapolatedto the trigger chamber planes and the efficiency is measured by looking at associated trigger signals inthe barrel or end-cap regions separately. The ratio of the event trigger efficiency measured in data andpredicted by Monte-Carlo simulation is 0.929 ± ± W channel and 0.981 ± easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 21 W → e ν Z → ee W → µν Z → µµ Central Relative Central Relative Central Relative Central Relativevalue uncertainty value uncertainty value uncertainty value uncertainty ε event < < < < ε lep ε trig < < α reco C W , C Z Table 6:
Efficiency factors per lepton and α reco as well as their relative uncertainties which enter the calculation ofthe correction factors C W and C Z for both lepton channels. The trigger efficiencies were measured from data. Theother efficiencies and their uncertainties were determined from Monte-Carlo simulation and have been validatedwith data, as described in the text. It should be noted that for Z bosons the trigger and identification efficienciesare given per lepton, according to the definition given in Eq. (6). ± Z channel. These values are significantly different from 1 and thereforea correction is applied to the central values of C W and C Z . The systematic uncertainty is derived fromchanging the tolerance on the association between tracks and trigger signals, by checking the stabilityof the 20 GeV threshold in the plateau region and by comparing measurements obtained using differentmuon reconstruction algorithms.The term ε lep includes the combined-muon reconstruction efficiency relative to the inner detector track( ε = 0.924 ± ε = 0.966 ± ε = 0.993 ± Z decays and found to be in agreement with Monte-Carlosimulation within ± α reco includes in addition to the muon and E missT resolution effects the efficiency for the recon-struction of a track in the inner detector ( ε = 0.989 ± α reco result from the uncertainties on the muon momentum scale and resolution (as derived in Section 4.3)and for the W analysis from uncertainties on the E missT scale and resolution.The central values, as well as the relative uncertainties, of the efficiencies and of α reco are also sum-marised for both W → µν and Z → µ µ final states in Table 6. C W and C Z and their uncertainties The central values of the correction factors C W and C Z , shown in Table 6, were determined to a largeextent using Monte-Carlo simulation. For muons, data-driven corrections for the trigger efficiencies areincluded. The uncertainties of C W and C Z receive contributions from the uncertainties of the efficien-cies discussed above and from uncertainties on the correction factor α reco . A breakdown of the variouscomponents is given in Tables 7 and 8 for electron and muon final states, respectively. The decompo-sition was made in such a way that the correlations between the different contributions are negligible.For electrons, the main contributions result from uncertainties on the electron reconstruction efficiencyand from material effects in the inner detector as well as from uncertainties on the electron energy scaleand resolution. For muons, the uncertainties on the reconstruction efficiency and on the E missT scale andresolution are dominant.The uncertainties on C W linked to uncertainties on the scale of the missing transverse energy were de-termined from a variation of the response of cells in topological clusters within the range given in Sec-tion 4.4. These changes propagate to an uncertainty of ± W → (cid:96) ν events.Other sources of uncertainty, namely the imperfect modelling of the overall E missT response (low energyhadrons) and resolution, of the underlying event and pile-up effects, lead to acceptance changes at the2 The ATLAS Collaboration Parameter δ C W / C W (%) δ C Z / C Z (%)Trigger efficiency < < E missT scale and resolution 2.0 -Problematic regions in the calorimeter 1.4 2.7Pile-up 0.5 0.2Charge misidentification 0.5 0.5FSR modelling 0.3 0.3Theoretical uncertainty (PDFs) 0.3 0.3Total uncertainty 7.0 9.4 Table 7:
Summary of the different terms contributing to the uncertainty on C W and C Z for electron final states.The decomposition has been made such that correlations between the various contributions are negligible.Parameter δ C W / C W (%) δ C Z / C Z (%)Trigger efficiency 1.9 0.7Reconstruction efficiency 2.5 5.0Momentum scale 1.2 0.5Momentum resolution 0.2 0.5 E missT scale and resolution 2.0 -Isolation efficiency 1.0 2.0Theoretical uncertainty (PDFs) 0.3 0.3Total uncertainty 4.0 5.5 Table 8:
Summary of the different terms contributing to the uncertainty on C W and C Z for muon final states. Thedecomposition has been made such that correlations between the various contributions are negligible. level of ± ±
2% on C W .In addition uncertainties arising from QED final-state radiation and theoretical uncertainties, resultingpredominantly from structure function parametrisations, have been considered. The purely theoreticaluncertainty on the QED final-state radiation emission is very small, typically smaller than 0.2% [42, 43].It can be neglected compared to the other uncertainties discussed in Section 7.4. In the case of electronsand collinear emission of QED photons, however, there is an experimental uncertainty arising from thetransport of low-energy photons through the detector material and the response of the electromagneticcalorimeter which was estimated to be < C W and C Z . Finally, using the prescription describedin Section 7.4, the relative uncertainties on C W and C Z resulting from structure function parametrisationswere estimated to be small, at the level of ± C W and C Z arelarger for electrons than for muons. This is mainly due to the higher sensitivity of electrons to materialeffects in the inner detector and the current knowledge of the electron energy scale compared to the muonmomentum scale. According to Eq.(5), the correction factors C W and C Z , the number of observed events, and the integratedluminosity are the elements for the extraction of the fiducial cross sections. All relevant numbers aresummarised, separated for W + , W − , W and Z production and decay in the electron and muon channelsin Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Using these numbers, the fiducial cross sections reported in Table 11are obtained.Even with the rather low integrated luminosity of about 320 nb − , these W cross-section measurementseasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 23 W + W − W Electron channel value stat syst lumi value stat syst lumi value stat syst lumi N sig W L W [nb − ] 315 - - 35 315 - - 35 315 - - 35 C W A W Muon channel value stat syst lumi value stat syst lumi value stat syst lumi N sig W L W [nb − ] 310 - - 34 310 - - 34 310 - - 34 C W A W Table 9:
Summary of input quantities for the calculation of the W + , W − and W boson production cross sections.For each channel, the observed numbers of signal events after background subtraction, the correction factors C W ,the acceptance factors A W and the integrated luminosities are given, with their statistical, systematic, and luminos-ity uncertainties. Z / γ ∗ Electron channel Muon channel value stat syst lumi value stat syst lumi N sig Z L Z [nb − ] 316 - - 35 331 - - 35 C Z A Z Table 10:
Summary of input quantities for the calculation of the Z / γ ∗ boson production cross section. For theelectron and muon channels, the observed numbers of signal events after background subtraction, the correctionfactors C Z , the acceptance factors A Z and the integrated luminosities are given, with their statistical, systematic,and luminosity uncertainties. are already dominated by systematic uncertainties, most prominently by the luminosity uncertainty of ±
11% and to a lesser degree by the experimental uncertainties discussed in the previous section. Asalready mentioned, these cross sections are only very weakly affected by theoretical uncertainties relatedto the calculation of acceptance corrections. The calculation of these correction factors and of the relateduncertainties is discussed in the next section.
The total cross sections are derived from the measured fiducial cross sections by applying the factors A W and A Z for the phase-space requirements applied in the analysis:– W → e ν : E e T >
20 GeV, | η | < .
47, excluding 1 . < | η | < . p ν T >
25 GeV, m T >
40 GeV;– W → µν : p µ T >
20 GeV, | η | < . p ν T >
25 GeV, m T >
40 GeV;– Z → ee : E e T >
20 GeV, | η | < .
47, excluding 1 . < | η | < .
52, 66 < m ee <
116 GeV;– Z → µ µ : p µ T >
20 GeV, | η | < .
4, 66 < m µµ <
116 GeV.The calculation of A W and A Z is based on Monte-Carlo simulation. Losses due to QED final-state radi-ation [42, 43] are included in the correction factors C W and C Z , evaluated with a full simulation of thedetector response.4 The ATLAS Collaboration σ fid W ( ± ) · BR( W → e ν ) [nb] σ fid W ( ± ) · BR( W → µν ) [nb] W + . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) W − . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) W . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) σ fid Z / γ ∗ · BR( Z / γ ∗ → ee ) [nb], σ fid Z / γ ∗ · BR( Z / γ ∗ → µ µ ) [nb],66 < m ee <
116 GeV 66 < m µµ <
116 GeV Z / γ ∗ . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) Table 11:
Measured fiducial cross sections times leptonic branching ratios for W + , W − , W and Z / γ ∗ productionin the electron and muon final states. The acceptances are calculated using the PYTHIA Monte-Carlo generator with the modified leadingorder parton distribution function set MRST LO* [44] and the corresponding ATLAS MC09 tune [45].The central values of the acceptances are provided in Table 12, separated for W + , W − , W and Z / γ ∗ production. In addition, the ratio A W / A Z is given, which is relevant for the measurement of the cross-section ratio (see Section 7.7). The statistical uncertainties resulting from the Monte-Carlo samples arenegligible.The systematic uncertainties on the acceptances are dominated by the limited knowledge of the protonPDFs and the modelling of the W and Z boson production at the LHC. These uncertainties therefore werederived by combining three different components:– The uncertainties within one PDF set were derived using the CTEQ 6.6 PDF [46] error eigenvectorsets at the 90% C.L. limit, in combination with the MC@NLO acceptance calculation. The relativeuncertainties on the acceptances were found to be ± W + , ± W − , and ± Z / γ ∗ -boson production.– Larger uncertainties were found between different PDF sets. They have been estimated usingPYTHIA, based on the maximal difference between the MRST LO*, CTEQ 6.6 and HERAPDF1.0 [47] sets. The relative uncertainties on the acceptances were found to be ± W + , ± W − , and ± Z / γ ∗ -boson production.– The uncertainties due to the modelling of W and Z production were derived from the differenceobtained between the PYTHIA and MC@NLO simulations, using the same PDF set, CTEQ 6.6.In this case the relative uncertainties on the acceptances were found to be ± W + , ± W − , and ± Z / γ ∗ -boson production.Adding these components in quadrature results in systematic uncertainties on the acceptance values for W + , W − and Z / γ ∗ production of ± . ± .
7% and ± . ±
3% and ±
4% are used in the following as the overall relative systematic uncertainties for the PYTHIAacceptance values A W and A Z , respectively.The uncertainties on the ratios of acceptances cannot be naively calculated via error propagation sincethe theoretical uncertainties exhibit significant correlations and the PDF uncertainties are expected tocancel partially. Using the same combination of the three sources of uncertainties, as discussed for theeasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 25 MC A W + A W − A W A Z A W / A Z W + → e + ν W − → e − ν W → e ν Z / γ ∗ → e + e − PYTHIA MRST LO* 0.466 0.457 0.462 0.446 1.036PYTHIA CTEQ6.6 0.479 0.458 0.471 0.455 1.035PYTHIA HERAPDF1.0 0.477 0.461 0.470 0.451 1.042MC@NLO HERAPDF1.0 0.475 0.454 0.465 0.440 1.057MC@NLO CTEQ6.6 0.478 0.452 0.465 0.445 1.045 A W + A W − A W A Z A W / A Z W + → µ + ν W − → µ − ν W → µν Z / γ ∗ → µ + µ − PYTHIA MRSTLO* 0.484 0.475 0.480 0.486 0.988PYTHIA CTEQ6.6 0.499 0.477 0.490 0.496 0.987PYTHIA HERAPDF1.0 0.496 0.479 0.489 0.492 0.994MC@NLO HERAPDF1.0 0.494 0.472 0.483 0.479 1.008MC@NLO CTEQ6.6 0.496 0.470 0.483 0.485 0.996
Table 12:
Summary of acceptance values A W for W → e ν and W → µν (separated for charges and combined) and A Z for Z / γ ∗ → ee and Z / γ ∗ → µ µ as well as the ratio A W / A Z using various Monte-Carlo simulations. individual acceptances, the uncertaintiess on the ratios are estimated to be ± A W + / A Z , ± A W − / A Z , and ± A W / A Z . The total cross sections are obtained by dividing the measured fiducial cross sections by the acceptancefactors. The results are summarized in Table 13, separated for the electron and muon final states. σ tot W ( ± ) · BR( W → e ν ) [nb] σ tot W ( ± ) · BR( W → µν ) [nb] W + . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) W − . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) W . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) σ tot Z / γ ∗ · BR( Z / γ ∗ → ee ) [nb], σ tot Z / γ ∗ · BR( Z / γ ∗ → µ µ ) [nb],66 < m ee <
116 GeV 66 < m µµ <
116 GeV Z / γ ∗ . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) Table 13:
Measured total cross sections times leptonic branching ratios for W + , W − , W and Z / γ ∗ production inthe electron and muon final states. Assuming lepton universality, the measured total cross sections in the two lepton final states can becombined to decrease the statistical uncertainty. For the combination, it is assumed that the uncertaintieson the integrated luminosity, on the acceptance factors A W and A Z and the uncertainty resulting from thehadronic part of the E missT measurement are fully correlated between the electron and muon channels. Allother uncertainties are assumed to be uncorrelated. For the W production cross sections the followingresults are obtained: σ tot W + · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb , σ tot W − · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb , σ tot W · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb . For the Z / γ ∗ production cross section, measured in the mass range 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV, the combinedresult is: σ tot Z / γ ∗ · BR ( Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb ( < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV ) . It should be noted that the pure Z -boson cross section is expected to be 2% lower in the mass rangeconsidered.Due to the additional uncertainties on A W and A Z the relative systematic uncertainties have slightlyincreased, as compared to the fiducial cross sections. For the total W production cross section, therelative uncertainties are ± ± ± Z / γ ∗ production crosssection the statistical uncertainty is still larger than the experimental systematic uncertainty. The relativeuncertainties are ± ± ± A comparison of the measured cross-section values for W and Z production to theoretical predictionsincluding next-to-next-to-leading order QCD corrections are shown in Fig. 11. The calculations wereperformed using the programs FEWZ [8] and ZWPROD [5,6] with the MSTW 08 NNLO structure func-tion parameterisation [48]. The following results were obtained: σ NNLOW + → (cid:96) + ν = 6.16 ± σ NNLOW − → (cid:96) − ν = 4.30 ± σ NNLOW → (cid:96) ν = 10.46 ± σ NNLOZ / γ ∗ → (cid:96) + (cid:96) − = 0.96 ± < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV.An overall uncertainty of the NNLO W and Z -boson cross sections of ±
5% was estimated using theMSTW 08 NNLO PDF error eigenvectors at the 90% C.L. limit, variations of α s in the range 0.1145– 0.1176, and variations of the renormalisation and factorisation scales by factors of two around thenominal scales µ R = µ F = m W / Z . Within the uncertainties, the calculations for W production agreewell with the measured cross sections. In particular, the expected asymmetry between the W + and W − cross sections is confirmed. For the Z cross section, the present measurements are below the theoreticalpredictions, but are still consistent within uncertainties.In Figures 12 and 13, the combined electron and muon measurements at √ s = 7 TeV are compared tothe theoretical predictions and to previous measurements of the total W and Z -production cross sectionsby the UA1 [9] and UA2 [10] experiments at √ s = .
63 TeV at the CERN SppS and by the CDF [13]and D0 [15] experiments at √ s = . √ s = .
96 TeV at the Fermilab Tevatron colliders and tothe recent W production cross-section measurement by the PHENIX [16] experiment in proton-protoncollisions at √ s = . W and Z production cross sections is welldescribed. W to Z cross sections The measurement of the ratio of the W to Z cross sections times branching ratios, R = σ W · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) σ Z · BR ( Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) , (7)constitutes an important test of the Standard Model. It can be measured with a higher relative precisionthan the individual cross sections since both experimental and theoretical uncertainties partially cancel.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 27 [nb] + W σ ν + l → + W → (pp σ Theory (NNLO)
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310-315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( [nb] - W σ ν - l → - W → (pp σ Theory (NNLO)
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310-315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( [nb] W σ ν l → W → (pp σ Theory (NNLO)
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310-315 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( [nb] * γ Z/ σ Electron channelMuon channelCombined ll) → * γ Z/ → (pp σ Theory (NNLO)
ATLAS -1 L dt = 316-331 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( Fig. 11:
The measured values of σ W · BR (W → (cid:96) ν ) for W + , W − and for their sum and of σ Z / γ ∗ · BR (Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) compared to the theoretical predictions based on NNLO QCD calculations (see text). Results are shown for theelectron and muon final states as well as for their combination. The error bars represent successively the statistical,the statistical plus systematic and the total uncertainties (statistical, systematic and luminosity). All uncertaintiesare added in quadrature. In addition, it is sensitive to new physics processes which change the W or Z production rates or the W → (cid:96) ν branching ratio.Based on the theoretical cross-section calculations presented in Section 7.6 the ratios of the W + , W − , W to the Z / γ ∗ cross sections are predicted to be: R NNLOW + / Z = 6.387 + . − . , R NNLOW − / Z = 4.445 + . − . , and R NNLOW / Z = 10.840 ± R can be written as R = N sigW N sigZ · A Z A W · C Z C W . (8)In particular, the integrated luminosity and the related uncertainty cancel. The uncertainties on the ratioof the acceptance factors have already been discussed in Section 7.4. The uncertainty on the ratio ofthe correction factors C Z / C W was evaluated separately for the electron and the muon channels. For bothelectrons and muons, the correlation between the uncertainties on α W reco and α Z reco was taken to be onefor the contribution of the lepton energy scale and resolution and zero for the uncertainties resultingfrom the E missT scale (hadronic recoil), which affects only α W reco . In addition, in the case of electrons, acorrelation between the “tight” (applied in the W analysis) and “medium” (applied in the Z analysis)electron identification criteria is relevant and was taken into account. The total uncertainty on C W / C Z was estimated to be ± ± [TeV] s ) [ nb ] ν l → B r ( W × W σ -1 )pW (pW (pp) (pp) + W (pp) - W = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( -1 L dt = 310-315 nb ∫ ν l → W ν + l → + W ν - l → - W ν (l/e) → CDF W/ ν ) µ (e/ → D0 W/ ν l → UA1 W ν e → UA2 W ν ) - /e + (e → ± Phenix W/
NNLO QCD
ATLAS
Fig. 12:
The measured values of σ W · BR (W → (cid:96) ν ) for W + , W − and for their sum compared to the theoreticalpredictions based on NNLO QCD calculations (see text). Results are shown for the combined electron-muonresults. The predictions are shown for both proton-proton (W + , W − and their sum) and proton-antiproton colliders(W ) as a function of √ s. In addition, previous measurements at proton-antiproton and proton-proton collidersare shown. The data points at the various energies are staggered to improve readability. The CDF and D0measurements are shown for both Tevatron collider energies, √ s = 1.8 TeV and √ s = 1.96 TeV. All data points aredisplayed with their total uncertainty. The theoretical uncertainties are not shown. R eW ( ± ) / Z R µ W ( ± ) / Z W + ± ± ± ± W − ± ± ± ± W ± ± ± ± Table 14:
Measured cross-section ratios R e , µ W + / Z , R e , µ W − / Z and R e , µ W / Z in the electron and muon final states. Using the measured cross-section values presented in Section 7.5 the results given in Table 14 are ob-tained for the cross-section ratios for the electron and muon channels. The combination of the two leptonflavours leads to: R (cid:96) W + / Z = 7.0 ± ± R (cid:96) W − / Z = 4.7 ± ± R (cid:96) W / Z = 11.7 ± ± Z → ee cross section, the ratios in the electronchannel are above the theoretical expectations. However, it should be noted that the three ratio mea-surements are correlated via the common low Z → ee cross-section value and are still compatible withinuncertainties with the theory value.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 29 [TeV] s ll ) [ nb ] → * γ B r ( Z / × * γ Z / σ -2 -1 )p* (p γ Z/ * (pp) γ Z/ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( -1 L dt = 316-331 nb ∫ < 116 GeV) ll ll (66 < m → * γ Z/ < 116 GeV) ee ee (66 < m → * γ CDF Z/ < 110 GeV) ee ee (70 < m → * γ D0 Z/ < 116 GeV) ee (66 < m µµ ee/ → * γ CDF Z// < 105 GeV) ee ee (75 < m → * γ D0 Z/ > 70 GeV) ee ee (m → * γ UA1 Z/ > 50 GeV) µµ (m µµ → * γ UA1 Z/ > 76 GeV) ee ee (m → * γ UA2 Z/
NNLO QCD
ATLAS
Fig. 13:
The measured value of σ Z / γ ∗ × BR (Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) where the electron and muon channels have been com-bined, compared to the theoretical predictions based on NNLO QCD calculations (see text). The predictions areshown for both proton-proton and proton-antiproton colliders as a function of √ s. In addition, previous measure-ments at proton-antiproton colliders are shown. The data points at the various energies are staggered to improvereadability. The CDF and D0 measurements are shown for both Tevatron collider energies, √ s = 1.8 TeV and √ s= 1.96 TeV. All data points are displayed with their total uncertainty. The theoretical uncertainties are not shown. Updated measurements using larger data samples will provide interesting constraints on Γ W and allowfor a precise test of the Standard Model predictions. For such measurements the ratios would have tobe normalised to the pure Z boson contribution and electroweak corrections would need to be addressedmore carefully. W → (cid:96) ν charge asymmetry The measurement of the charge asymmetry of the W -bosons produced at hadron colliders provides im-portant information about parton distribution functions. Inclusive measurements have been performed atthe Tevatron [49, 50] and the data have been included in global fits of parton distributions [48, 51].The W -boson charge asymmetry is obtained from the charge of the decay leptons. The lepton chargeasymmetry measured in this paper is defined via the fiducial cross sections, σ fid W + and σ fid W − (see Section 7.1for the definition): A (cid:96) = σ fid W + − σ fid W − σ fid W + + σ fid W − . (9)This implies that the asymmetry is measured for leptons, satisfying the geometrical and kinematic con-straints at generator level, as defined in Section 5.4, with all detector effects corrected for.Given the difference in the cross-section measurements for W + and W − presented in the previous section,the overall asymmetry is different from zero. This reflects the different content of u and d valence quarksin the proton. In addition, the asymmetry is expected to depend on the lepton pseudorapidity. Thisdependence on η provides valuable constraints on the parton distribution functions of the proton, sincedifferent η bins probe different average values of the momentum fractions x of the partons producing the W boson. As the W lepton asymmetry is mainly sensitive to valence quark distributions [52], it provides0 The ATLAS Collaboration * γ Z/ σ / W σ * γ Z/ σ / + W σ (Theory NNLO) * γ Z/ σ / - W σ Electron channelMuon channelCombined
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310-331 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( * γ Z/ σ / W σ * γ Z/ σ / W σ Electron channelMuon channelCombined
ATLAS -1 L dt = 310-331 nb ∫ = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( Fig. 14:
The measured ratios between the W + and W − and the Z / γ ∗ cross section (left) in the electron and muondecay channels as well as the combined result (right) compared to the theoretical predictions based on NNLOQCD calculations (see text). The error bars represent successively the statistical, the statistical plus systematicand the total uncertainties (statistical, systematic and luminosity). All uncertainties are added in quadrature. complementary information to that obtained from measurements of structure functions in deep inelasticscattering at HERA [47, 53–55], which do not strongly constrain the ratio between u and d quarks in thekinematic regime probed at the LHC.The η distributions of reconstructed electrons and muons after the final W selection cuts (see Section 5.4)are shown in Fig. 15. It should be noted that common η acceptance cuts for electrons and muons areused and the asymmetry is measured over the pseudorapidity range 0 < | η | < < | η | < η distributions.The lepton charge asymmetry is measured in two bins of pseudorapidity. For the calculation of theasymmetry, the correction factors C W were calculated separately for the two charges and for each of the | η | bins and all background contributions are subtracted. For the ratio defined in Eq. (9), the luminosityuncertainty cancels and C W -related uncertainties appear to be dominant. Also for some of those, e.g.efficiency uncertainties, cancellations appear as long as they affect positive and negative charged leptonsin a symmetric way. Given the different production rates between the two lepton charges, the chargemisidentification might lead to a bias in the result. For electrons it is of the order of 0.1% for thebarrel and 1.3% for the end-cap regions and has been implicitly taken into account in the C W correctionsapplied. For muons, the charge misidentification is found to be negligible.The results obtained for the different η bins as well as after integration over the full pseudorapidityinterval are listed in Table 15 together with their statistical and systematic uncertainties. Consistentresults are obtained for the two lepton channels. The precision of the measurements is limited for bothchannels by the statistical uncertainties.For the electron channel, major contributions to the systematic uncertainties result from uncertaintieson the electron identification and charge misidentification ( ± . ± . ± . ± . W → τν decays exhibiting an asymmetry similar to that expected in W → e ν decays. The systematic uncertaintyon the electron identification and misidentification is determined by comparing the variation of the asym-metry as a function of identification requirements in data to the same variation as predicted by MonteCarlo simulation.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 31 η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ee → Z ντ → W ττ → Z tt -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ + e ATLAS (a) η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( ν e → W QCD ee → Z ντ → W ττ → Z tt -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ - e ATLAS (b) -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2020406080100120140160 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2020406080100120140160 η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( νµ → W QCD ντ → W µµ → Z ττ → Z tt + µ -1 L dt = 310 nb ∫ ATLAS (c) -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2020406080100120140160 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2020406080100120140160 η -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 E n t r i e s = 7 TeV)sData 2010 ( νµ → W QCD ντ → W µµ → Z ττ → Z tt - µ -1 L dt = 310 nb ∫ ATLAS (d)
Fig. 15:
Pseudorapidity distributions of e + (a), e − (b), µ + (c) and µ − (d) candidates satisfying all W requirements(see Section 5.4). The data are compared to the Monte Carlo simulation, broken down into the signal and variousbackground components. The Monte-Carlo distributions are normalised to the integrated luminosity of the data,as described in Section 5.2. η range Electron channel Muon channel Combination A e A µ A (cid:96) | η | < .
37 0 . ± . ± .
00 0 . ± . ± .
01 0 . ± . ± . . < | η | < . . ± . ± .
02 0 . ± . ± .
02 0 . ± . ± . | η | < .
37 and 1 . < | η | < . . ± . ± .
01 0 . ± . ± .
01 0 . ± . ± . Table 15:
The measured lepton asymmetries integrated over the full pseudorapidity range, as well as separatelyfor the barrel and end-cap regions. The quoted uncertainties are statistical (first) and systematic (second).
For the muon channel, the systematic uncertainty is derived from uncertainties on the muon momentumscale and resolution ( ± . ± . ± . ± . | η | and compared to theo-2 The ATLAS Collaboration η A sy mm e t r y η A sy mm e t r y =7 TeV)sData 2010 (MC(cid:10)NLO, CTEQ 6.6MC(cid:10)NLO, HERAPDF 1.0DYNNLO, MSTW 08 -1 L dt = 315 nb ∫ ν e → W ATLAS (a) η A sy mm e t r y η A sy mm e t r y =7 TeV)sData 2010 (MC(cid:10)NLO, CTEQ 6.6MC(cid:10)NLO, HERAPDF 1.0DYNNLO, MSTW 08 -1 L dt = 310 nb ∫ νµ → W ATLAS (b)
Fig. 16:
Lepton charge asymmetries for the electron (a) and muon (b) channels. Superimposed are several theo-retical predictions (see text). The bands show the uncertainties extracted from a variation of the error eigenvectorsets of the PDFs at the 90% C.L. limit. retical predictions obtained with NLO calculations, namely MC@NLO [56] and DYNNLO [57] whichhave been interfaced to various PDF parameterisations of the respective order. The parton distributionfunctions MSTW 08 [48], CTEQ 6.6 [46] and HERAPDF 1.0 [47] were used. The predictions of thesecalculations for the integrated asymmetry ( | η | < .
37 and 1.52 < | η | < . + . − . (MC@NLO,CTEQ 6.6), 0.202 ± . + . − . (DYNNLO, MSTW 08). Thebands shown for the theoretical predictions display the uncertainties extracted from a variation of theerror eigenvector sets of the PDFs at the 90% C.L. limit. Within the large uncertainties, the theoreticalpredictions agree with the present measurements. However, the data do not provide sufficient separationpower to discriminate between various models. The ATLAS collaboration presents first measurements of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z → (cid:96)(cid:96) production crosssections in proton-proton collisions at √ s = 7 TeV. The results are based on data corresponding to anintegrated luminosity of approximately 320 nb − . The total inclusive W -boson production cross sectionstimes the leptonic branching ratios for the combined electron-muon channels are measured to be: σ tot W + · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb , σ tot W − · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb , σ tot W · BR ( W → (cid:96) ν ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb . For the Z / γ ∗ production cross section, measured in the mass range 66 < m (cid:96)(cid:96) <
116 GeV, the result forthe combination of the electron and muon decay channels is: σ tot Z / γ ∗ · BR ( Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) ± . ( lumi ) nb . The ratio of the W to Z -boson cross sections is measured to be R W / Z = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) . easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 33Theoretical predictions, based on NNLO QCD calculations, are in good agreement with all measure-ments.In addition, a measurement of the charge asymmetry of W -boson production is presented for the firsttime in proton-proton collisions at √ s = | η | < . < | η | < A (cid:96) = ( σ fid W + − σ fid W − )( σ fid W + + σ fid W − ) = . ± . ( stat ) ± . ( syst ) . This measurement demonstrates clearly the expected charge asymmetry for W boson production inproton-proton collisions. Theoretical predictions are in agreement with this measurement, which, atpresent, is still statistically limited.Despite the rather low integrated luminosity used in the analyses presented here, the accuracy of thecross-section measurements is, however, already dominated by systematic uncertainties, most promi-nently by the luminosity uncertainty of ±
11% and to a lesser degree by the experimental uncertaintieson lepton identification. The latter uncertainties are expected to improve significantly with more data.In particular, high-statistics Z -boson samples can be used to perform measurements of efficiencies andto reduce the corresponding uncertainties. The luminosity uncertainty is dominated by the ±
10% un-certainty on the beam currents in the machine and is also expected to improve with more precise anddedicated measurements.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank CERN for the efficient commissioning and operation of the LHC during this initialhigh-energy data-taking period as well as the support staff from our institutions without whom ATLAScould not be operated efficiently.We acknowledge the support of ANPCyT, Argentina; YerPhI, Armenia; ARC, Australia; BMWF, Aus-tria; ANAS, Azerbaijan; SSTC, Belarus; CNPq and FAPESP, Brazil; NSERC, NRC and CFI, Canada;CERN; CONICYT, Chile; CAS, MOST and NSFC, China; COLCIENCIAS, Colombia; MEYS (MSMT),MPO and CCRC, Czech Republic; DNRF, DNSRC and Lundbeck Foundation, Denmark; ARTEMIS,European Union; IN2P3-CNRS, CEA-DSM/IRFU, France; GNAS, Georgia; BMBF, DFG, HGF, MPGand AvH Foundation, Germany; GSRT, Greece; ISF, MINERVA, GIF, DIP and Benoziyo Center, Israel;INFN, Italy; MEXT and JSPS, Japan; CNRST, Morocco; FOM and NWO, Netherlands; RCN, Nor-way; MNiSW, Poland; GRICES and FCT, Portugal; MERYS (MECTS), Romania; MES of Russia andROSATOM, Russian Federation; JINR; MSTD, Serbia; MSSR, Slovakia; ARRS and MVZT, Slovenia;DST/NRF, South Africa; MICINN, Spain; SRC and Wallenberg Foundation, Sweden; SER, SNSF andCantons of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland; NSC, Taiwan; TAEK, Turkey; STFC, the Royal Society andLeverhulme Trust, United Kingdom; DOE and NSF, United States of America.
References [1] J. Kubar and F. E. Paige,
Gluon Corrections to the Drell-Yan Model , Phys. Rev.
D19 (1979) 221.[2] G. Altarelli, R. K. Ellis, and G. Martinelli,
Large Perturbative Corrections to the Drell-YanProcess in QCD , Nucl. Phys.
B157 (1979) 461.[3] J. Kubar, M. Le Bellac, J. L. Meunier, and G. Plaut,
QCD Corrections to the Drell-Yan Mechanismand the Pion Structure Function , Nucl. Phys.
B175 (1980) 251.[4] P. J. Rijken and W. L. van Neerven,
Order α s contributions to the Drell-Yan cross-section at fixedtarget energies , Phys. Rev. D51 (1995) 44.4 The ATLAS Collaboration[5] R. Hamberg, W. L. van Neerven, and T. Matsuura,
A complete calculation of the order α s correction to the Drell-Yan K factor , Nucl. Phys. B359 (1991) 343; Erratum-ibid.
B644 (2002)403.[6] W. L. van Neerven and E. B. Zijlstra,
The O ( α s ) corrected Drell-Yan K factor in the DIS and MSscheme , Nucl. Phys. B382 (1992) 11; Erratum-ibid.
B680 (2004) 513.[7] R. V. Harlander and W. B. Kilgore,
Next-to-next-to-leading order Higgs production at hadroncolliders , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2002) 201801.[8] C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, High precision QCD at hadron colliders:Electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at NNLO , Phys. Rev.
D69 (2004) 094008.[9] The UA1 Collaboration, C. Albajar et al.,
Intermediate Vector Boson Cross-sections at the CERNSuper Proton Synchrotron Collider and the Number of Neutrino Types , Phys. Lett.
B198 (1987)271.[10] The UA2 Collaboration, J. Alitti et al.,
A Measurement of the W and Z Production Cross-sectionsand a Determination of Γ W at the CERN pp collider, Phys. Lett. B276 (1992) 365.[11] CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
Measurement of σ · B ( W → e ν ) and σ · B ( Z → e + e − ) in p ¯ pcollisions at √ s = . TeV , Phys. Rev. Lett. (1996) 3070.[12] CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al., Measurement of Z and Drell-Yan production cross section usingdimuons in ¯ pp collisions at √ s = . TeV , Phys. Rev.
D59 (1999) 052002.[13] The CDF Collaboration, A. Abulencia et al.,
Measurements of Inclusive W and Z Cross-sections inpp Collisions at √ s = . TeV , J. Phys.
G34 (2007) 2457.[14] The D0 Collaboration, B. Abbott et al.,
Extraction of the width of the W boson from measurementsof σ ( p ¯ p → W + X ) × B ( W → e ν ) and σ ( p ¯ p → Z + X ) × B ( Z → ee ) and their ratio , Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 072001.[15] The D0 Collaboration. D0 conference notes: 4403-CONF, 4750-CONF.[16] PHENIX Collaboration, A. Adare et al.,
Cross Section and Parity Violating Spin Asymmetries ofW ± Boson Production in Polarized p+p Collisions at √ s =
500 GeV , arXiv:1009.0505[hep-ex] .[17] STAR Collaboration, M. M. Aggarwal et al., Measurement of the parity-violating longitudinalsingle-spin asymmetry for W ± boson production in polarized proton-proton collisions at √ s =
500 GeV , arXiv:1009.0326 [hep-ex] .[18] L. Evans and P. Bryant, LHC Machine , JINST (2008) S08001.[19] The ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider , JINST (2008) S08003.[20] The ATLAS Collaboration, Readiness of the ATLAS Liquid Argon Calorimeter for LHCCollisions , http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-010-1354-y, Eur. Phys. J. C (2010) .[21] The ATLAS Collaboration,
Luminosity Determination using the ATLAS Detector , ATLASconference note: ATLAS-CONF-2010-060, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1281333.[22] The GEANT4 Collaboration, S. Agostinelli et al.,
GEANT4: A simulation toolkit , Nucl. Instrum.Meth.
A506 (2003) 250.[23] The ATLAS Collaboration,
The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure , arXiv:1005.4568 .[24] Particle Data Group, K. Nakamura, Review of particle physics ,http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/37/7A/075021, J. Phys.
G37 (2010) 075021,Section 33.3.2.5.[25] T. Sj¨ostrand, S. Mrenna, and P. Skands,
PYTHIA 6.4 physics and manual , JHEP (2006) 026.[26] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber, Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations ,JHEP (2002) 29.[27] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and B. R. Webber,
Matching NLO QCD and parton showers in heavy easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 35 flavour production , JHEP (2003) 007.[28] R. Bonciani, S. Catani, M. L. Mangano, and P. Nason, NLL resummation of the heavy-quarkhadroproduction cross-section , Nucl. Phys.
B529 (1998) 424.[29] S. Moch and P. Uwer,
Theoretical status and prospects for top-quark pair production at hadroncolliders , Phys. Rev.
D78 (2008) 034003.[30] M. Beneke, M. Czakon, P. Falgari, A. Mitov, and C. Schwinn,
Threshold expansion of thegg ( q ¯ q ) → Q ¯ Q + X cross section at order α s , Phys. Lett. B690 (2010) 483.[31] S. Frixione, P. Nason, and C. Oleari,
Matching NLO QCD computations with Parton Showersimulations: the POWHEG method , JHEP (2007) 070.[32] The ATLAS Collaboration, Charged-particle multiplicities in pp interactions at √ s = GeVmeasured with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , Phys. Lett.
B688 (2010) 21.[33] T. Cornelissen et al.,
Concepts, Design and Implementation of the ATLAS New Tracking (NEWT) ,ATLAS note: ATLAS-SOFT-PUB-2007-007, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1020106.[34] The ATLAS Collaboration,
Electron and photon reconstruction and identification in ATLAS:expected performance at high energy and results at √ s = GeV , ATLAS conference note:ATLAS-CONF-2010-005, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1273197.[35] The ATLAS Collaboration,
Expected performance of the ATLAS experiment: detector, trigger andphysics , CERN-OPEN-2008-020, arXiv:0901.0512 [hep-ex].[36] The ATLAS Collaboration,
Muon Reconstruction Performance , ATLAS conference note:ATLAS-CONF-2010-064, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1281339.[37] W. Lampl et al.,
Calorimeter Clustering Algorithms : Description and Performance , ATLASnote: ATL-LARG-PUB-2008-002, http://cdsweb/cern.ch/record/1099735.[38] T. Barillari et al.,
Local Hadron Calibration , ATLAS note: ATL-LARG-PUB-2009-001,http://cdsweb/cern.ch/record/1112035.[39] The ATLAS Collaboration,
ATLAS Calorimeter Response to Single Isolated Hadrons andEstimation of the Calorimeter Jet Scale Uncertainty , ATLAS conference note:ATLAS-CONF-2010-052, http://cdsweb/cern.ch/record/1281309.[40] The ATLAS Collaboration,
Data-Quality Requirements and Event Cleaning for Jets and MissingTransverse Energy Reconstruction with the ATLAS Detector in Proton-Proton Collisions at aCenter-of-Mass Energy of √ s = TeV , ATLAS conference note: ATLAS-CONF-2010-038,http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1277678.[41] K. Lohwasser,
The W Charge Asymmetry: Measurement of the Proton Structure with the ATLASdetector , PhD thesis, University of Oxford (2010), http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1265829.[42] G. Nanava, Q. Xu, and Z. Was,
Matching NLO parton shower matrix element with exact phasespace: case of W → l ν ( γ ) and γ ∗ → π + π − ( γ ) , arXiv:0906.4052 [hep-ph] .[43] P. Golonka and Z. Was, PHOTOS Monte Carlo: A Precision tool for QED corrections in Z and Wdecays , Eur. Phys. J.
C45 (2006) 97.[44] A. Sherstnev and R. S. Thorne,
Parton Distributions for LO Generators , Eur. Phys. J.
C55 (2008)553.[45] The ATLAS Collaboration,
ATLAS Monte Carlo tunes for MC09 , ATLAS public note:ATL-PHYS-PUB-2010-002, http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1247375.[46] P. M. Nadolsky et al.,
Implications of CTEQ global analysis for collider observables , Phys. Rev.
D78 (2008) 013004.[47] The H1 and ZEUS Collaboration, F. D. Aaron et al.,
Combined Measurement and QCD Analysisof the Inclusive ep Scattering Cross Sections at HERA , JHEP (2010) 109.[48] A. D. Martin, W. J. Stirling, R. S. Thorne, and G. Watt, Parton distributions for the LHC , Eur.Phys. J.
C63 (2009) 189.6 The ATLAS Collaboration[49] CDF Collaboration, F. Abe et al.,
Measurement of the lepton charge asymmetry in W boson decaysproduced in p ¯ p collisions , Phys. Rev. Lett. (1998) 5754.[50] H.-L. Lai et al., New parton distributions for collider physics , arXiv:1007.2241 [hep-ph] .[51] J. Pumplin et al., New generation of parton distributions with uncertainties from global QCDanalysis , JHEP (2002) 012.[52] E. L. Berger, F. Halzen, C. S. Kim, and S. Willenbrock, Weak boson production at Tevatronenergies , Phys. Rev.
D40 (1989) 83.[53] ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al.,
Measurement of charged current deep inelasticscattering cross sections with a longitudinally polarised electron beam atHERA , Eur. Phys. J.
C61 (2009) 223.[54] ZEUS Collaboration, S. Chekanov et al.,
Measurement of high-Q neutral current deep inelastice − p scattering cross sections with a longitudinally polarised electron beam atHERA , Eur. Phys. J. C62 (2009) 625.[55] H1 Collaboration, C. Adloff et al.,
Measurement and QCD analysis of neutral and charged currentcross sections at HERA , Eur. Phys. J.
C30 (2003) 1.[56] S. Frixione and B. R. Webber,
Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations ,JHEP (2002) 29.[57] S. Catani and M. Grazzini,
An NNLO subtraction formalism in hadron collisions and itsapplication to Higgs boson production at the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. (2007) 222002.easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 37 The ATLAS Collaboration
G. Aad , B. Abbott , J. Abdallah , A.A. Abdelalim , A. Abdesselam , O. Abdinov , B. Abi ,M. Abolins , H. Abramowicz , H. Abreu , E. Acerbi , , B.S. Acharya , , M. Ackers ,D.L. Adams , T.N. Addy , J. Adelman , M. Aderholz , S. Adomeit , C. Adorisio , ,P. Adragna , T. Adye , S. Aefsky , J.A. Aguilar-Saavedra , a , M. Aharrouche , S.P. Ahlen ,F. Ahles , A. Ahmad , H. Ahmed , M. Ahsan , G. Aielli , , T. Akdogan , T.P.A. ˚Akesson ,G. Akimoto , A.V. Akimov , A. Aktas , M.S. Alam , M.A. Alam , S. Albrand , M. Aleksa ,I.N. Aleksandrov , M. Aleppo , , F. Alessandria , C. Alexa , G. Alexander , G. Alexandre ,T. Alexopoulos , M. Alhroob , M. Aliev , G. Alimonti , J. Alison , M. Aliyev , P.P. Allport ,S.E. Allwood-Spiers , J. Almond , A. Aloisio , , R. Alon , A. Alonso , J. Alonso ,M.G. Alviggi , , K. Amako , P. Amaral , G. Ambrosio , b , C. Amelung , V.V. Ammosov ,A. Amorim , c , G. Amor´os , N. Amram , C. Anastopoulos , T. Andeen , C.F. Anders ,K.J. Anderson , A. Andreazza , , V. Andrei , M-L. Andrieux , X.S. Anduaga , A. Angerami ,F. Anghinolfi , N. Anjos , A. Annovi , A. Antonaki , M. Antonelli , S. Antonelli , ,J. Antos , B. Antunovic , F. Anulli , S. Aoun , R. Apolle , G. Arabidze , I. Aracena ,Y. Arai , A.T.H. Arce , J.P. Archambault , S. Arfaoui , d , J-F. Arguin , T. Argyropoulos ,E. Arik , ∗ , M. Arik , A.J. Armbruster , K.E. Arms , S.R. Armstrong , O. Arnaez ,C. Arnault , A. Artamonov , D. Arutinov , M. Asai , S. Asai , R. Asfandiyarov , S. Ask ,B. ˚Asman , , D. Asner , L. Asquith , K. Assamagan , A. Astbury , A. Astvatsatourov ,G. Atoian , B. Aubert , B. Auerbach , E. Auge , K. Augsten , M. Aurousseau , N. Austin ,G. Avolio , R. Avramidou , D. Axen , C. Ay , G. Azuelos , e , Y. Azuma , M.A. Baak ,G. Baccaglioni , C. Bacci , , A.M. Bach , H. Bachacou , K. Bachas , G. Bachy ,M. Backes , E. Badescu , P. Bagnaia , , Y. Bai , D.C. Bailey , T. Bain , J.T. Baines ,O.K. Baker , M.D. Baker , S Baker , F. Baltasar Dos Santos Pedrosa , E. Banas , P. Banerjee ,Sw. Banerjee , D. Banfi , , A. Bangert , V. Bansal , S.P. Baranov , S. Baranov ,A. Barashkou , A. Barbaro Galtieri , T. Barber , E.L. Barberio , D. Barberis , , M. Barbero ,D.Y. Bardin , T. Barillari , M. Barisonzi , T. Barklow , N. Barlow , B.M. Barnett ,R.M. Barnett , A. Baroncelli , M. Barone , A.J. Barr , F. Barreiro , J. Barreiro Guimar˜aes daCosta , P. Barrillon , R. Bartoldus , D. Bartsch , R.L. Bates , L. Batkova , J.R. Batley ,A. Battaglia , M. Battistin , G. Battistoni , F. Bauer , H.S. Bawa , M. Bazalova , B. Beare ,T. Beau , P.H. Beauchemin , R. Beccherle , P. Bechtle , G.A. Beck , H.P. Beck ,M. Beckingham , K.H. Becks , A.J. Beddall , A. Beddall , V.A. Bednyakov , C. Bee ,M. Begel , S. Behar Harpaz , P.K. Behera , M. Beimforde , C. Belanger-Champagne ,B. Belhorma , P.J. Bell , W.H. Bell , G. Bella , L. Bellagamba , F. Bellina , G. Bellomo , ,M. Bellomo , A. Belloni , K. Belotskiy , O. Beltramello , S. Ben Ami , O. Benary ,D. Benchekroun , C. Benchouk , M. Bendel , B.H. Benedict , N. Benekos , Y. Benhammou ,G.P. Benincasa , D.P. Benjamin , M. Benoit , J.R. Bensinger , K. Benslama , S. Bentvelsen ,M. Beretta , D. Berge , E. Bergeaas Kuutmann , N. Berger , F. Berghaus , E. Berglund ,J. Beringer , K. Bernardet , P. Bernat , R. Bernhard , C. Bernius , T. Berry , A. Bertin , ,F. Bertinelli , F. Bertolucci , , M.I. Besana , , N. Besson , S. Bethke , W. Bhimji ,R.M. Bianchi , M. Bianco , , O. Biebel , J. Biesiada , M. Biglietti , , H. Bilokon ,M. Binder , M. Bindi , , S. Binet , A. Bingul , C. Bini , , C. Biscarat , R. Bischof ,U. Bitenc , K.M. Black , R.E. Blair , J-B Blanchard , G. Blanchot , C. Blocker , J. Blocki ,A. Blondel , W. Blum , U. Blumenschein , C. Boaretto , , G.J. Bobbink ,V.B. Bobrovnikov , A. Bocci , D. Bocian , R. Bock , C.R. Boddy , M. Boehler , J. Boek ,N. Boelaert , S. B¨oser , J.A. Bogaerts , A. Bogdanchikov , A. Bogouch , ∗ , C. Bohm ,J. Bohm , V. Boisvert , T. Bold , f , V. Boldea , V.G. Bondarenko , M. Bondioli ,M. Boonekamp , G. Boorman , C.N. Booth , P. Booth , J.R.A. Booth , S. Bordoni ,C. Borer , A. Borisov , G. Borissov , I. Borjanovic , S. Borroni , , K. Bos ,8 The ATLAS CollaborationD. Boscherini , M. Bosman , H. Boterenbrood , D. Botterill , J. Bouchami , J. Boudreau ,E.V. Bouhova-Thacker , C. Boulahouache , C. Bourdarios , A. Boveia , J. Boyd , I.R. Boyko ,N.I. Bozhko , I. Bozovic-Jelisavcic , S. Braccini , J. Bracinik , A. Braem , E. Brambilla , ,P. Branchini , G.W. Brandenburg , A. Brandt , G. Brandt , O. Brandt , U. Bratzler , B. Brau ,J.E. Brau , H.M. Braun , B. Brelier , J. Bremer , R. Brenner , S. Bressler , D. Breton ,N.D. Brett , P.G. Bright-Thomas , D. Britton , F.M. Brochu , I. Brock , R. Brock ,T.J. Brodbeck , E. Brodet , F. Broggi , C. Bromberg , G. Brooijmans , W.K. Brooks ,G. Brown , E. Brubaker , P.A. Bruckman de Renstrom , D. Bruncko , R. Bruneliere ,S. Brunet , A. Bruni , G. Bruni , M. Bruschi , T. Buanes , F. Bucci , J. Buchanan ,N.J. Buchanan , P. Buchholz , R.M. Buckingham , A.G. Buckley , I.A. Budagov , B. Budick ,V. B¨uscher , L. Bugge , D. Buira-Clark , E.J. Buis , O. Bulekov , M. Bunse , T. Buran ,H. Burckhart , S. Burdin , T. Burgess , S. Burke , E. Busato , P. Bussey , C.P. Buszello ,F. Butin , B. Butler , J.M. Butler , C.M. Buttar , J.M. Butterworth , T. Byatt , J. Caballero ,S. Cabrera Urb´an , M. Caccia , , g , D. Caforio , , O. Cakir , P. Calafiura , G. Calderini ,P. Calfayan , R. Calkins , L.P. Caloba , R. Caloi , , D. Calvet , S. Calvet , A. Camard ,P. Camarri , , M. Cambiaghi , , D. Cameron , J. Cammin , S. Campana ,M. Campanelli , V. Canale , , F. Canelli , A. Canepa , J. Cantero , L. Capasso , ,M.D.M. Capeans Garrido , I. Caprini , M. Caprini , M. Caprio , , D. Capriotti ,M. Capua , , R. Caputo , C. Caramarcu , R. Cardarelli , T. Carli , G. Carlino ,L. Carminati , , B. Caron , h , S. Caron , C. Carpentieri , G.D. Carrillo Montoya ,S. Carron Montero , A.A. Carter , J.R. Carter , J. Carvalho , i , D. Casadei , M.P. Casado ,M. Cascella , , C. Caso , , ∗ , A.M. Castaneda Hernandez , E. Castaneda-Miranda ,V. Castillo Gimenez , N.F. Castro , a , G. Cataldi , F. Cataneo , A. Catinaccio , J.R. Catmore ,A. Cattai , G. Cattani , , S. Caughron , D. Cauz , , A. Cavallari , , P. Cavalleri ,D. Cavalli , M. Cavalli-Sforza , V. Cavasinni , , A. Cazzato , , F. Ceradini , ,C. Cerna , A.S. Cerqueira , A. Cerri , L. Cerrito , F. Cerutti , M. Cervetto , , S.A. Cetin ,F. Cevenini , , A. Chafaq , D. Chakraborty , K. Chan , J.D. Chapman , J.W. Chapman ,E. Chareyre , D.G. Charlton , V. Chavda , S. Cheatham , S. Chekanov , S.V. Chekulaev ,G.A. Chelkov , H. Chen , L. Chen , S. Chen , T. Chen , X. Chen , S. Cheng ,A. Cheplakov , V.F. Chepurnov , R. Cherkaoui El Moursli , V. Tcherniatine , D. Chesneanu ,E. Cheu , S.L. Cheung , L. Chevalier , F. Chevallier , V. Chiarella , G. Chiefari , ,L. Chikovani , J.T. Childers , A. Chilingarov , G. Chiodini , M.V. Chizhov , G. Choudalakis ,S. Chouridou , I.A. Christidi , A. Christov , D. Chromek-Burckhart , M.L. Chu , J. Chudoba ,G. Ciapetti , , A.K. Ciftci , R. Ciftci , D. Cinca , V. Cindro , M.D. Ciobotaru ,C. Ciocca , , A. Ciocio , M. Cirilli , j , M. Citterio , A. Clark , P.J. Clark , W. Cleland ,J.C. Clemens , B. Clement , C. Clement , , R.W. Clifft , Y. Coadou , M. Cobal , ,A. Coccaro , , J. Cochran , P. Coe , S. Coelli , J. Coggeshall , E. Cogneras ,C.D. Cojocaru , J. Colas , B. Cole , A.P. Colijn , C. Collard , N.J. Collins , C. Collins-Tooth ,J. Collot , G. Colon , R. Coluccia , , G. Comune , P. Conde Mui˜no , E. Coniavitis ,M.C. Conidi , M. Consonni , S. Constantinescu , C. Conta , , F. Conventi , k , J. Cook ,M. Cooke , B.D. Cooper , A.M. Cooper-Sarkar , N.J. Cooper-Smith , K. Copic ,T. Cornelissen , , M. Corradi , S. Correard , F. Corriveau , l , A. Corso-Radu ,A. Cortes-Gonzalez , G. Cortiana , G. Costa , M.J. Costa , D. Costanzo , T. Costin ,D. Cˆot´e , R. Coura Torres , L. Courneyea , G. Cowan , C. Cowden , B.E. Cox , K. Cranmer ,J. Cranshaw , M. Cristinziani , G. Crosetti , , R. Crupi , , S. Cr´ep´e-Renaudin ,C. Cuenca Almenar , T. Cuhadar Donszelmann , S. Cuneo , , M. Curatolo , C.J. Curtis ,P. Cwetanski , H. Czirr , Z. Czyczula , S. D’Auria , M. D’Onofrio , A. D’Orazio ,A. Da Rocha Gesualdi Mello , P.V.M. Da Silva , C Da Via , W. Dabrowski , A. Dahlhoff ,T. Dai , C. Dallapiccola , S.J. Dallison , ∗ , C.H. Daly , M. Dam , M. Dameri , ,D.S. Damiani , H.O. Danielsson , R. Dankers , D. Dannheim , V. Dao , G. Darbo ,easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 39G.L. Darlea , C. Daum , J.P. Dauvergne , W. Davey , T. Davidek , N. Davidson ,R. Davidson , M. Davies , A.R. Davison , E. Dawe , I. Dawson , J.W. Dawson , ∗ , R.K. Daya ,K. De , R. de Asmundis , S. De Castro , , P.E. De Castro Faria Salgado , S. De Cecco ,J. de Graat , N. De Groot , P. de Jong , E. De La Cruz-Burelo , C. De La Taille ,B. De Lotto , , L. De Mora , L. De Nooij , M. De Oliveira Branco , D. De Pedis ,P. de Saintignon , A. De Salvo , U. De Sanctis , , A. De Santo , J.B. De Vivie De Regie ,G. De Zorzi , , S. Dean , G. Dedes , D.V. Dedovich , P.O. Defay , J. Degenhardt ,M. Dehchar , M. Deile , C. Del Papa , , J. Del Peso , T. Del Prete , , A. Dell’Acqua ,L. Dell’Asta , , M. Della Pietra , m , D. della Volpe , , M. Delmastro , P. Delpierre ,N. Delruelle , P.A. Delsart , C. Deluca , S. Demers , M. Demichev , B. Demirkoz , J. Deng ,W. Deng , S.P. Denisov , C. Dennis , J.E. Derkaoui , F. Derue , P. Dervan , K. Desch ,P.O. Deviveiros , A. Dewhurst , B. DeWilde , S. Dhaliwal , R. Dhullipudi , n ,A. Di Ciaccio , , L. Di Ciaccio , A. Di Domenico , , A. Di Girolamo , B. Di Girolamo ,S. Di Luise , , A. Di Mattia , R. Di Nardo , , A. Di Simone , , R. Di Sipio , ,M.A. Diaz , M.M. Diaz Gomez , F. Diblen , E.B. Diehl , H. Dietl , J. Dietrich ,T.A. Dietzsch , S. Diglio , K. Dindar Yagci , J. Dingfelder , C. Dionisi , , P. Dita ,S. Dita , F. Dittus , F. Djama , R. Djilkibaev , T. Djobava , M.A.B. do Vale ,A. Do Valle Wemans , T.K.O. Doan , M. Dobbs , R. Dobinson , ∗ , D. Dobos , E. Dobson ,M. Dobson , J. Dodd , O.B. Dogan , ∗ , C. Doglioni , T. Doherty , Y. Doi , J. Dolejsi ,I. Dolenc , Z. Dolezal , B.A. Dolgoshein , T. Dohmae , M. Donadelli , M. Donega ,J. Donini , J. Dopke , A. Doria , A. Dos Anjos , M. Dosil , A. Dotti , , M.T. Dova ,J.D. Dowell , A. Doxiadis , A.T. Doyle , Z. Drasal , J. Drees , N. Dressnandt ,H. Drevermann , C. Driouichi , M. Dris , J.G. Drohan , J. Dubbert , T. Dubbs , S. Dube ,E. Duchovni , G. Duckeck , A. Dudarev , F. Dudziak , M. D¨uhrssen , I.P. Duerdoth ,L. Duflot , M-A. Dufour , M. Dunford , H. Duran Yildiz , A. Dushkin , R. Duxfield ,M. Dwuznik , F. Dydak , D. Dzahini , M. D¨uren , W.L. Ebenstein , J. Ebke , S. Eckert ,S. Eckweiler , K. Edmonds , C.A. Edwards , I. Efthymiopoulos , K. Egorov , W. Ehrenfeld ,T. Ehrich , T. Eifert , G. Eigen , K. Einsweiler , E. Eisenhandler , T. Ekelof , M. El Kacimi ,M. Ellert , S. Elles , F. Ellinghaus , K. Ellis , N. Ellis , J. Elmsheuser , M. Elsing , R. Ely ,D. Emeliyanov , R. Engelmann , A. Engl , B. Epp , A. Eppig , J. Erdmann , A. Ereditato ,D. Eriksson , I. Ermoline , J. Ernst , M. Ernst , J. Ernwein , D. Errede , S. Errede ,E. Ertel , M. Escalier , C. Escobar , X. Espinal Curull , B. Esposito , F. Etienne ,A.I. Etienvre , E. Etzion , D. Evangelakou , H. Evans , V.N. Evdokimov , L. Fabbri , ,C. Fabre , K. Facius , R.M. Fakhrutdinov , S. Falciano , A.C. Falou , Y. Fang ,M. Fanti , , A. Farbin , A. Farilla , J. Farley , T. Farooque , S.M. Farrington ,P. Farthouat , D. Fasching , P. Fassnacht , D. Fassouliotis , B. Fatholahzadeh , L. Fayard ,S. Fazio , , R. Febbraro , P. Federic , O.L. Fedin , I. Fedorko , W. Fedorko ,M. Fehling-Kaschek , L. Feligioni , C.U. Felzmann , C. Feng , E.J. Feng , A.B. Fenyuk ,J. Ferencei , D. Ferguson , J. Ferland , B. Fernandes , o , W. Fernando , S. Ferrag ,J. Ferrando , V. Ferrara , A. Ferrari , P. Ferrari , R. Ferrari , A. Ferrer , M.L. Ferrer ,D. Ferrere , C. Ferretti , A. Ferretto Parodi , , F. Ferro , , M. Fiascaris , F. Fiedler ,A. Filipˇciˇc , A. Filippas , F. Filthaut , M. Fincke-Keeler , M.C.N. Fiolhais , i , L. Fiorini ,A. Firan , G. Fischer , P. Fischer , M.J. Fisher , S.M. Fisher , J. Flammer , M. Flechl ,I. Fleck , J. Fleckner , P. Fleischmann , S. Fleischmann , T. Flick , L.R. Flores Castillo ,M.J. Flowerdew , F. F¨ohlisch , M. Fokitis , T. Fonseca Martin , J. Fopma , D.A. Forbush ,A. Formica , A. Forti , D. Fortin , J.M. Foster , D. Fournier , A. Foussat , A.J. Fowler ,K. Fowler , H. Fox , P. Francavilla , , S. Franchino , , D. Francis , M. Franklin ,S. Franz , M. Fraternali , , S. Fratina , J. Freestone , S.T. French , R. Froeschl ,D. Froidevaux , J.A. Frost , C. Fukunaga , E. Fullana Torregrosa , J. Fuster , C. Gabaldon ,O. Gabizon , T. Gadfort , S. Gadomski , G. Gagliardi , , P. Gagnon , C. Galea ,0 The ATLAS CollaborationE.J. Gallas , M.V. Gallas , V. Gallo , B.J. Gallop , P. Gallus , E. Galyaev , K.K. Gan ,Y.S. Gao , p , V.A. Gapienko , A. Gaponenko , M. Garcia-Sciveres , C. Garc´ıa , J.E. Garc´ıaNavarro , R.W. Gardner , N. Garelli , H. Garitaonandia , V. Garonne , J. Garvey , C. Gatti ,G. Gaudio , O. Gaumer , B. Gaur , V. Gautard , P. Gauzzi , , I.L. Gavrilenko , C. Gay ,G. Gaycken , J-C. Gayde , E.N. Gazis , P. Ge , C.N.P. Gee , Ch. Geich-Gimbel ,K. Gellerstedt , , C. Gemme , M.H. Genest , S. Gentile , , F. Georgatos , S. George ,P. Gerlach , A. Gershon , C. Geweniger , H. Ghazlane , P. Ghez , N. Ghodbane ,B. Giacobbe , S. Giagu , , V. Giakoumopoulou , V. Giangiobbe , , F. Gianotti ,B. Gibbard , A. Gibson , S.M. Gibson , G.F. Gieraltowski , L.M. Gilbert , M. Gilchriese ,O. Gildemeister , V. Gilewsky , D. Gillberg , A.R. Gillman , D.M. Gingrich , q , J. Ginzburg ,N. Giokaris , M.P. Giordani , , R. Giordano , , F.M. Giorgi , P. Giovannini ,P.F. Giraud , P. Girtler , D. Giugni , P. Giusti , B.K. Gjelsten , L.K. Gladilin , C. Glasman ,J Glatzer , A. Glazov , K.W. Glitza , G.L. Glonti , K.G. Gnanvo , J. Godfrey , J. Godlewski ,M. Goebel , T. G¨opfert , C. Goeringer , C. G¨ossling , T. G¨ottfert , V. Goggi , , r ,S. Goldfarb , D. Goldin , T. Golling , N.P. Gollub , S.N. Golovnia , A. Gomes , s ,L.S. Gomez Fajardo , R. Gonc¸alo , L. Gonella , C. Gong , A. Gonidec , S. Gonzalez ,S. Gonz´alez de la Hoz , M.L. Gonzalez Silva , B. Gonzalez-Pineiro , S. Gonzalez-Sevilla ,J.J. Goodson , L. Goossens , P.A. Gorbounov , H.A. Gordon , I. Gorelov , G. Gorfine ,B. Gorini , E. Gorini , , A. Goriˇsek , E. Gornicki , S.A. Gorokhov , B.T. Gorski ,V.N. Goryachev , B. Gosdzik , M. Gosselink , M.I. Gostkin , M. Gouan`ere ,I. Gough Eschrich , M. Gouighri , D. Goujdami , M.P. Goulette , A.G. Goussiou , C. Goy ,I. Grabowska-Bold , t , V. Grabski , P. Grafstr¨om , C. Grah , K-J. Grahn , F. Grancagnolo ,S. Grancagnolo , V. Grassi , V. Gratchev , N. Grau , H.M. Gray , u , J.A. Gray , E. Graziani ,O.G. Grebenyuk , B. Green , D. Greenfield , T. Greenshaw , Z.D. Greenwood , v , I.M. Gregor ,P. Grenier , A. Grewal , E. Griesmayer , J. Griffiths , N. Grigalashvili , A.A. Grillo ,K. Grimm , S. Grinstein , Y.V. Grishkevich , J.-F. Grivaz , L.S. Groer , J. Grognuz ,M. Groh , E. Gross , J. Grosse-Knetter , J. Groth-Jensen , M. Gruwe , K. Grybel ,V.J. Guarino , C. Guicheney , A. Guida , , T. Guillemin , S. Guindon , H. Guler , w ,J. Gunther , B. Guo , A. Gupta , Y. Gusakov , V.N. Gushchin , A. Gutierrez , P. Gutierrez ,N. Guttman , O. Gutzwiller , C. Guyot , C. Gwenlan , C.B. Gwilliam , A. Haas , S. Haas ,C. Haber , G. Haboubi , R. Hackenburg , H.K. Hadavand , D.R. Hadley , C. Haeberli ,P. Haefner , R. H¨artel , F. Hahn , S. Haider , Z. Hajduk , H. Hakobyan , J. Haller , x ,G.D. Hallewell , K. Hamacher , A. Hamilton , S. Hamilton , H. Han , L. Han ,K. Hanagaki , M. Hance , C. Handel , P. Hanke , C.J. Hansen , J.R. Hansen , J.B. Hansen ,J.D. Hansen , P.H. Hansen , T. Hansl-Kozanecka , P. Hansson , K. Hara , G.A. Hare ,T. Harenberg , R. Harper , R.D. Harrington , O.M. Harris , K Harrison , J.C. Hart ,J. Hartert , F. Hartjes , T. Haruyama , A. Harvey , S. Hasegawa , Y. Hasegawa ,K. Hashemi , S. Hassani , M. Hatch , D. Hauff , S. Haug , M. Hauschild , R. Hauser ,M. Havranek , B.M. Hawes , C.M. Hawkes , R.J. Hawkings , D. Hawkins , T. Hayakawa ,H.S. Hayward , S.J. Haywood , E. Hazen , M. He , S.J. Head , V. Hedberg , L. Heelan ,S. Heim , B. Heinemann , S. Heisterkamp , L. Helary , M. Heldmann , M. Heller ,S. Hellman , , C. Helsens , T. Hemperek , R.C.W. Henderson , P.J. Hendriks , M. Henke ,A. Henrichs , A.M. Henriques Correia , S. Henrot-Versille , F. Henry-Couannier , C. Hensel ,T. Henß , Y. Hern´andez Jim´enez , A.D. Hershenhorn , G. Herten , R. Hertenberger ,L. Hervas , N.P. Hessey , A. Hidvegi , E. Hig´on-Rodriguez , D. Hill , ∗ , J.C. Hill , N. Hill ,K.H. Hiller , S. Hillert , S.J. Hillier , I. Hinchliffe , D. Hindson , E. Hines , M. Hirose ,F. Hirsch , D. Hirschbuehl , J. Hobbs , N. Hod , M.C. Hodgkinson , P. Hodgson ,A. Hoecker , M.R. Hoeferkamp , J. Hoffman , D. Hoffmann , M. Hohlfeld , M. Holder ,T.I. Hollins , A. Holmes , S.O. Holmgren , T. Holy , J.L. Holzbauer , R.J. Homer ,Y. Homma , T. Horazdovsky , C. Horn , S. Horner , K. Horton , J-Y. Hostachy , T. Hott ,easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 41S. Hou , M.A. Houlden , A. Hoummada , D.F. Howell , J. Hrivnac , I. Hruska ,T. Hryn’ova , P.J. Hsu , S.-C. Hsu , G.S. Huang , Z. Hubacek , F. Hubaut , F. Huegging ,T.B. Huffman , E.W. Hughes , G. Hughes , R.E. Hughes-Jones , M. Huhtinen , P. Hurst ,M. Hurwitz , U. Husemann , N. Huseynov , J. Huston , J. Huth , G. Iacobucci , G. Iakovidis ,M. Ibbotson , I. Ibragimov , R. Ichimiya , L. Iconomidou-Fayard , J. Idarraga , M. Idzik ,P. Iengo , O. Igonkina , Y. Ikegami , M. Ikeno , Y. Ilchenko , D. Iliadis , D. Imbault ,M. Imhaeuser , M. Imori , T. Ince , J. Inigo-Golfin , P. Ioannou , M. Iodice , G. Ionescu ,A. Irles Quiles , K. Ishii , A. Ishikawa , M. Ishino , R. Ishmukhametov , T. Isobe ,C. Issever , S. Istin , Y. Itoh , A.V. Ivashin , W. Iwanski , H. Iwasaki , J.M. Izen ,V. Izzo , B. Jackson , J.N. Jackson , P. Jackson , M.R. Jaekel , M. Jahoda , V. Jain ,K. Jakobs , S. Jakobsen , J. Jakubek , D.K. Jana , E. Jankowski , E. Jansen , A. Jantsch ,M. Janus , R.C. Jared , G. Jarlskog , L. Jeanty , K. Jelen , I. Jen-La Plante , P. Jenni ,A. Jeremie , P. Jeˇz , S. J´ez´equel , H. Ji , W. Ji , J. Jia , Y. Jiang , M. Jimenez Belenguer ,G. Jin , S. Jin , O. Jinnouchi , M.D. Joergensen , D. Joffe , L.G. Johansen ,M. Johansen , , K.E. Johansson , P. Johansson , S. Johnert , K.A. Johns ,K. Jon-And , , G. Jones , M. Jones , R.W.L. Jones , T.W. Jones , T.J. Jones , O. Jonsson ,K.K. Joo , y , D. Joos , C. Joram , P.M. Jorge , c , S. Jorgensen , J. Joseph , V. Juranek ,P. Jussel , V.V. Kabachenko , S. Kabana , M. Kaci , A. Kaczmarska , P. Kadlecik ,M. Kado , H. Kagan , M. Kagan , S. Kaiser , E. Kajomovitz , S. Kalinin ,L.V. Kalinovskaya , S. Kama , N. Kanaya , M. Kaneda , V.A. Kantserov , J. Kanzaki ,B. Kaplan , A. Kapliy , J. Kaplon , D. Kar , M. Karagounis , M. Karagoz , M. Karnevskiy ,K. Karr , V. Kartvelishvili , A.N. Karyukhin , L. Kashif , A. Kasmi , R.D. Kass , A. Kastanas ,M. Kataoka , Y. Kataoka , E. Katsoufis , J. Katzy , V. Kaushik , K. Kawagoe , T. Kawamoto ,G. Kawamura , M.S. Kayl , F. Kayumov , V.A. Kazanin , M.Y. Kazarinov , S.I. Kazi ,J.R. Keates , R. Keeler , P.T. Keener , R. Kehoe , M. Keil , G.D. Kekelidze , M. Kelly ,J. Kennedy , C.J. Kenney , M. Kenyon , O. Kepka , N. Kerschen , B.P. Kerˇsevan ,S. Kersten , K. Kessoku , C. Ketterer , M. Khakzad , F. Khalil-zada , H. Khandanyan ,A. Khanov , D. Kharchenko , A. Khodinov , A.G. Kholodenko , A. Khomich , G. Khoriauli ,N. Khovanskiy , V. Khovanskiy , E. Khramov , J. Khubua , G. Kilvington , H. Kim , M.S. Kim ,P.C. Kim , S.H. Kim , N. Kimura , O. Kind , P. Kind , B.T. King , M. King , J. Kirk ,G.P. Kirsch , L.E. Kirsch , A.E. Kiryunin , D. Kisielewska , B. Kisielewski , T. Kittelmann ,A.M. Kiver , H. Kiyamura , E. Kladiva , J. Klaiber-Lodewigs , M. Klein , U. Klein ,K. Kleinknecht , M. Klemetti , A. Klier , A. Klimentov , R. Klingenberg , E.B. Klinkby ,T. Klioutchnikova , P.F. Klok , S. Klous , E.-E. Kluge , T. Kluge , P. Kluit , S. Kluth ,N.S. Knecht , E. Kneringer , J. Knobloch , B.R. Ko , T. Kobayashi , M. Kobel , B. Koblitz ,M. Kocian , A. Kocnar , P. Kodys , K. K¨oneke , A.C. K¨onig , S. Koenig , S. K¨onig ,L. K¨opke , F. Koetsveld , P. Koevesarki , T. Koffas , E. Koffeman , F. Kohn , Z. Kohout ,T. Kohriki , T. Koi , T. Kokott , G.M. Kolachev , H. Kolanoski , V. Kolesnikov , I. Koletsou ,J. Koll , D. Kollar , M. Kollefrath , S. Kolos , z , S.D. Kolya , A.A. Komar , J.R. Komaragiri ,T. Kondo , T. Kono , aa , A.I. Kononov , R. Konoplich , S.P. Konovalov , N. Konstantinidis ,A. Kootz , S. Koperny , S.V. Kopikov , K. Korcyl , K. Kordas , V. Koreshev , A. Korn ,A. Korol , I. Korolkov , E.V. Korolkova , V.A. Korotkov , O. Kortner , S. Kortner ,V.V. Kostyukhin , M.J. Kotam¨aki , S. Kotov , V.M. Kotov , K.Y. Kotov , C. Kourkoumelis ,A. Koutsman , R. Kowalewski , H. Kowalski , T.Z. Kowalski , W. Kozanecki , A.S. Kozhin ,V. Kral , V.A. Kramarenko , G. Kramberger , O. Krasel , M.W. Krasny , A. Krasznahorkay ,J. Kraus , A. Kreisel , F. Krejci , J. Kretzschmar , N. Krieger , P. Krieger , G. Krobath ,K. Kroeninger , H. Kroha , J. Kroll , J. Kroseberg , J. Krstic , U. Kruchonak , H. Kr¨uger ,Z.V. Krumshteyn , A. Kruth , T. Kubota , S. Kuehn , A. Kugel , T. Kuhl , D. Kuhn ,V. Kukhtin , Y. Kulchitsky , S. Kuleshov , C. Kummer , M. Kuna , N. Kundu , J. Kunkle ,A. Kupco , H. Kurashige , M. Kurata , L.L. Kurchaninov , Y.A. Kurochkin , V. Kus ,2 The ATLAS CollaborationW. Kuykendall , M. Kuze , P. Kuzhir , O. Kvasnicka , R. Kwee , A. La Rosa ,L. La Rotonda , , L. Labarga , J. Labbe , C. Lacasta , F. Lacava , , H. Lacker ,D. Lacour , V.R. Lacuesta , E. Ladygin , R. Lafaye , B. Laforge , T. Lagouri , S. Lai ,M. Lamanna , M. Lambacher , C.L. Lampen , W. Lampl , E. Lancon , U. Landgraf ,M.P.J. Landon , H. Landsman , J.L. Lane , C. Lange , A.J. Lankford , F. Lanni ,K. Lantzsch , A. Lanza , V.V. Lapin , ∗ , S. Laplace , C. Lapoire , J.F. Laporte , T. Lari ,A.V. Larionov , A. Larner , C. Lasseur , M. Lassnig , W. Lau , P. Laurelli , A. Lavorato ,W. Lavrijsen , P. Laycock , A.B. Lazarev , A. Lazzaro , , O. Le Dortz , E. Le Guirriec ,C. Le Maner , E. Le Menedeu , M. Le Vine , M. Leahu , A. Lebedev , C. Lebel ,M. Lechowski , T. LeCompte , F. Ledroit-Guillon , H. Lee , J.S.H. Lee , S.C. Lee ,M. Lefebvre , M. Legendre , A. Leger , B.C. LeGeyt , F. Legger , C. Leggett ,M. Lehmacher , G. Lehmann Miotto , M. Lehto , X. Lei , M.A.L. Leite , R. Leitner ,D. Lellouch , J. Lellouch , M. Leltchouk , V. Lendermann , K.J.C. Leney , T. Lenz ,G. Lenzen , B. Lenzi , K. Leonhardt , J. Lepidis , C. Leroy , J-R. Lessard , J. Lesser ,C.G. Lester , A. Leung Fook Cheong , J. Levˆeque , D. Levin , L.J. Levinson , M.S. Levitski ,M. Lewandowska , M. Leyton , B. Li , H. Li , X. Li , Z. Liang , Z. Liang , ab , B. Liberti ,P. Lichard , M. Lichtnecker , K. Lie , W. Liebig , R. Lifshitz , J.N. Lilley , H. Lim ,A. Limosani , M. Limper , S.C. Lin , F. Linde , J.T. Linnemann , E. Lipeles , L. Lipinsky ,A. Lipniacka , T.M. Liss , D. Lissauer , A. Lister , A.M. Litke , C. Liu , D. Liu , ac , H. Liu ,J.B. Liu , M. Liu , S. Liu , T. Liu , Y. Liu , M. Livan , , S.S.A. Livermore , A. Lleres ,S.L. Lloyd , E. Lobodzinska , P. Loch , W.S. Lockman , S. Lockwitz , T. Loddenkoetter ,F.K. Loebinger , A. Loginov , C.W. Loh , T. Lohse , K. Lohwasser , M. Lokajicek ,J. Loken , R.E. Long , L. Lopes , c , D. Lopez Mateos , ad , M. Losada , P. Loscutoff ,M.J. Losty , X. Lou , A. Lounis , K.F. Loureiro , L. Lovas , J. Love , P.A. Love ,A.J. Lowe , F. Lu , J. Lu , L. Lu , H.J. Lubatti , C. Luci , , A. Lucotte , A. Ludwig ,D. Ludwig , I. Ludwig , J. Ludwig , F. Luehring , G. Luijckx , D. Lumb , L. Luminari ,E. Lund , B. Lund-Jensen , B. Lundberg , J. Lundberg , J. Lundquist , M. Lungwitz ,A. Lupi , , G. Lutz , D. Lynn , J. Lynn , J. Lys , E. Lytken , H. Ma , L.L. Ma ,M. Maaßen , J.A. Macana Goia , G. Maccarrone , A. Macchiolo , B. Maˇcek ,J. Machado Miguens , c , D. Macina , R. Mackeprang , D. MacQueen , R.J. Madaras ,W.F. Mader , R. Maenner , T. Maeno , P. M¨attig , S. M¨attig , P.J. Magalhaes Martins , i ,L. Magnoni , E. Magradze , C.A. Magrath , Y. Mahalalel , K. Mahboubi , A. Mahmood ,G. Mahout , C. Maiani , , C. Maidantchik , A. Maio , s , S. Majewski , Y. Makida ,M. Makouski , N. Makovec , P. Mal , Pa. Malecki , P. Malecki , V.P. Maleev , F. Malek ,U. Mallik , D. Malon , S. Maltezos , V. Malyshev , S. Malyukov , M. Mambelli ,R. Mameghani , J. Mamuzic , A. Manabe , A. Manara , L. Mandelli , I. Mandi´c ,R. Mandrysch , J. Maneira , P.S. Mangeard , M. Mangin-Brinet , I.D. Manjavidze , A. Mann ,W.A. Mann , P.M. Manning , A. Manousakis-Katsikakis , B. Mansoulie , A. Manz ,A. Mapelli , L. Mapelli , L. March , J.F. Marchand , F. Marchese , , M. Marchesotti ,G. Marchiori , M. Marcisovsky , A. Marin , ∗ , C.P. Marino , F. Marroquim , R. Marshall ,Z. Marshall , ad , F.K. Martens , S. Marti-Garcia , A.J. Martin , A.J. Martin , B. Martin ,B. Martin , F.F. Martin , J.P. Martin , Ph. Martin , T.A. Martin , B. Martin dit Latour ,M. Martinez , V. Martinez Outschoorn , A. Martini , A.C. Martyniuk , F. Marzano ,A. Marzin , L. Masetti , T. Mashimo , R. Mashinistov , J. Masik , A.L. Maslennikov ,M. Maß , I. Massa , , G. Massaro , N. Massol , A. Mastroberardino , , T. Masubuchi ,M. Mathes , P. Matricon , H. Matsumoto , H. Matsunaga , T. Matsushita , C. Mattravers , ae ,J.M. Maugain , S.J. Maxfield , E.N. May , J.K. Mayer , A. Mayne , R. Mazini , M. Mazur ,M. Mazzanti , E. Mazzoni , , J. Mc Donald , S.P. Mc Kee , A. McCarn , R.L. McCarthy ,T.G. McCarthy , N.A. McCubbin , K.W. McFarlane , S. McGarvie , H. McGlone ,G. Mchedlidze , R.A. McLaren , S.J. McMahon , T.R. McMahon , T.J. McMahon ,easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 43R.A. McPherson , l , A. Meade , J. Mechnich , M. Mechtel , M. Medinnis , R. Meera-Lebbai ,T. Meguro , R. Mehdiyev , S. Mehlhase , A. Mehta , K. Meier , J. Meinhardt , B. Meirose ,C. Melachrinos , B.R. Mellado Garcia , L. Mendoza Navas , Z. Meng , a f , A. Mengarelli , ,S. Menke , C. Menot , E. Meoni , D. Merkl , P. Mermod , L. Merola , , C. Meroni ,F.S. Merritt , A.M. Messina , I. Messmer , J. Metcalfe , A.S. Mete , S. Meuser , C. Meyer ,J-P. Meyer , J. Meyer , J. Meyer , T.C. Meyer , W.T. Meyer , J. Miao , S. Michal ,L. Micu , R.P. Middleton , P. Miele , S. Migas , A. Migliaccio , , L. Mijovi´c ,G. Mikenberg , M. Mikestikova , B. Mikulec , M. Mikuˇz , D.W. Miller , R.J. Miller ,W.J. Mills , C. Mills , A. Milov , D.A. Milstead , , D. Milstein , S. Mima ,A.A. Minaenko , M. Mi˜nano , I.A. Minashvili , A.I. Mincer , B. Mindur , M. Mineev ,Y. Ming , L.M. Mir , G. Mirabelli , L. Miralles Verge , S. Misawa , S. Miscetti ,A. Misiejuk , A. Mitra , J. Mitrevski , G.Y. Mitrofanov , V.A. Mitsou , S. Mitsui ,P.S. Miyagawa , K. Miyazaki , J.U. Mj¨ornmark , D. Mladenov , T. Moa , , M. Moch , ,P. Mockett , S. Moed , V. Moeller , K. M¨onig , N. M¨oser , B. Mohn , W. Mohr ,S. Mohrdieck-M¨ock , A.M. Moisseev , ∗ , R. Moles-Valls , J. Molina-Perez , L. Moneta ,J. Monk , E. Monnier , S. Montesano , , F. Monticelli , R.W. Moore , G.F. Moorhead ,C. Mora Herrera , A. Moraes , A. Morais , c , J. Morel , G. Morello , , D. Moreno ,M. Moreno Ll´acer , P. Morettini , D. Morgan , M. Morii , J. Morin , Y. Morita ,A.K. Morley , G. Mornacchi , M-C. Morone , S.V. Morozov , J.D. Morris , H.G. Moser ,M. Mosidze , J. Moss , A. Moszczynski , R. Mount , E. Mountricha , S.V. Mouraviev ,T.H. Moye , E.J.W. Moyse , M. Mudrinic , F. Mueller , J. Mueller , K. Mueller ,T.A. M¨uller , D. Muenstermann , A. Muijs , A. Muir , A. Munar , Y. Munwes ,K. Murakami , R. Murillo Garcia , W.J. Murray , I. Mussche , E. Musto , ,A.G. Myagkov , M. Myska , J. Nadal , K. Nagai , K. Nagano , Y. Nagasaka , A.M. Nairz ,D. Naito , K. Nakamura , I. Nakano , G. Nanava , A. Napier , M. Nash , ag , I. Nasteva ,N.R. Nation , T. Nattermann , T. Naumann , F. Nauyock , G. Navarro , S.K. Nderitu ,H.A. Neal , E. Nebot , P. Nechaeva , A. Negri , , G. Negri , A. Nelson , S. Nelson ,T.K. Nelson , S. Nemecek , P. Nemethy , A.A. Nepomuceno , M. Nessi , S.Y. Nesterov ,M.S. Neubauer , L. Neukermans , A. Neusiedl , R.M. Neves , P. Nevski , F.M. Newcomer ,C. Nicholson , R.B. Nickerson , R. Nicolaidou , L. Nicolas , G. Nicoletti , B. Nicquevert ,F. Niedercorn , J. Nielsen , T. Niinikoski , A. Nikiforov , V. Nikolaenko , K. Nikolaev ,I. Nikolic-Audit , K. Nikolopoulos , H. Nilsen , P. Nilsson , Y. Ninomiya , A. Nisati ,T. Nishiyama , R. Nisius , L. Nodulman , M. Nomachi , I. Nomidis , H. Nomoto ,M. Nordberg , B. Nordkvist , , O. Norniella Francisco , P.R. Norton , D. Notz ,J. Novakova , M. Nozaki , M. Noˇziˇcka , I.M. Nugent , A.-E. Nuncio-Quiroz ,G. Nunes Hanninger , T. Nunnemann , E. Nurse , T. Nyman , S.W. O’Neale , ∗ , D.C. O’Neil ,V. O’Shea , F.G. Oakham , h , H. Oberlack , J. Ocariz , A. Ochi , S. Oda , S. Odaka , J. Odier ,G.A. Odino , , H. Ogren , A. Oh , S.H. Oh , C.C. Ohm , , T. Ohshima , H. Ohshita ,T.K. Ohska , T. Ohsugi , S. Okada , H. Okawa , Y. Okumura , T. Okuyama , M. Olcese ,A.G. Olchevski , M. Oliveira , i , D. Oliveira Damazio , C. Oliver , J. Oliver ,E. Oliver Garcia , D. Olivito , A. Olszewski , J. Olszowska , C. Omachi , ah , A. Onofre , ai ,P.U.E. Onyisi , C.J. Oram , G. Ordonez , M.J. Oreglia , F. Orellana , Y. Oren ,D. Orestano , , I. Orlov , C. Oropeza Barrera , R.S. Orr , E.O. Ortega , B. Osculati , ,R. Ospanov , C. Osuna , G. Otero y Garzon , J.P Ottersbach , B. Ottewell , M. Ouchrif ,F. Ould-Saada , A. Ouraou , Q. Ouyang , M. Owen , S. Owen , A Oyarzun , O.K. Øye ,V.E. Ozcan , K. Ozone , N. Ozturk , A. Pacheco Pages , C. Padilla Aranda , E. Paganis ,F. Paige , K. Pajchel , S. Palestini , J. Palla , D. Pallin , A. Palma , c , J.D. Palmer ,M.J. Palmer , Y.B. Pan , E. Panagiotopoulou , B. Panes , N. Panikashvili , V.N. Panin ,S. Panitkin , D. Pantea , M. Panuskova , V. Paolone , A. Paoloni , , Th.D. Papadopoulou ,A. Paramonov , S.J. Park , W. Park , a j , M.A. Parker , S.I. Parker , F. Parodi , , J.A. Parsons ,4 The ATLAS CollaborationU. Parzefall , E. Pasqualucci , A. Passeri , F. Pastore , , Fr. Pastore , G. P´asztor , ak ,S. Pataraia , N. Patel , J.R. Pater , S. Patricelli , , T. Pauly , L.S. Peak , M. Pecsy ,M.I. Pedraza Morales , S.J.M. Peeters , S.V. Peleganchuk , H. Peng , R. Pengo , A. Penson ,J. Penwell , M. Perantoni , K. Perez , ad , E. Perez Codina , M.T. P´erez Garc´ıa-Esta˜n ,V. Perez Reale , I. Peric , L. Perini , , H. Pernegger , R. Perrino , P. Perrodo , S. Persembe ,P. Perus , V.D. Peshekhonov , E. Petereit , O. Peters , B.A. Petersen , J. Petersen ,T.C. Petersen , E. Petit , A. Petridis , C. Petridou , E. Petrolo , F. Petrucci , ,D Petschull , M. Petteni , R. Pezoa , B. Pfeifer , A. Phan , A.W. Phillips , P.W. Phillips ,G. Piacquadio , E. Piccaro , M. Piccinini , , A. Pickford , R. Piegaia , J.E. Pilcher ,A.D. Pilkington , J. Pina , s , M. Pinamonti , , J.L. Pinfold , J. Ping , B. Pinto , c ,O. Pirotte , C. Pizio , , R. Placakyte , M. Plamondon , W.G. Plano , M.-A. Pleier ,A.V. Pleskach , A. Poblaguev , S. Poddar , F. Podlyski , P. Poffenberger , L. Poggioli ,T. Poghosyan , M. Pohl , F. Polci , G. Polesello , A. Policicchio , A. Polini , J. Poll ,V. Polychronakos , D.M. Pomarede , D. Pomeroy , K. Pomm`es , P. Ponsot , L. Pontecorvo ,B.G. Pope , G.A. Popeneciu , R. Popescu , D.S. Popovic , A. Poppleton , J. Popule ,X. Portell Bueso , R. Porter , C. Posch , G.E. Pospelov , S. Pospisil , M. Potekhin ,I.N. Potrap , C.J. Potter , C.T. Potter , K.P. Potter , G. Poulard , J. Poveda , R. Prabhu ,P. Pralavorio , S. Prasad , M. Prata , , R. Pravahan , S. Prell , K. Pretzl , L. Pribyl ,D. Price , L.E. Price , M.J. Price , P.M. Prichard , D. Prieur , M. Primavera , K. Prokofiev ,F. Prokoshin , S. Protopopescu , J. Proudfoot , X. Prudent , H. Przysiezniak , S. Psoroulas ,E. Ptacek , C. Puigdengoles , J. Purdham , M. Purohit , al , P. Puzo , Y. Pylypchenko ,M. Qi , J. Qian , W. Qian , Z. Qian , Z. Qin , D. Qing , A. Quadt , D.R. Quarrie ,W.B. Quayle , F. Quinonez , M. Raas , V. Radeka , V. Radescu , B. Radics , T. Rador ,F. Ragusa , , G. Rahal , A.M. Rahimi , D. Rahm , C. Raine , ∗ , B. Raith , S. Rajagopalan ,S. Rajek , M. Rammensee , M. Rammes , M. Ramstedt , , P.N. Ratoff , F. Rauscher ,E. Rauter , M. Raymond , A.L. Read , D.M. Rebuzzi , , A. Redelbach , G. Redlinger ,R. Reece , K. Reeves , A. Reichold , E. Reinherz-Aronis , A Reinsch , I. Reisinger ,D. Reljic , C. Rembser , Z.L. Ren , P. Renkel , B. Rensch , S. Rescia , M. Rescigno ,S. Resconi , B. Resende , P. Reznicek , R. Rezvani , A. Richards , R.A. Richards ,R. Richter , E. Richter-Was , am , M. Ridel , S. Rieke , M. Rijpstra , M. Rijssenbeek ,A. Rimoldi , , L. Rinaldi , R.R. Rios , I. Riu , G. Rivoltella , , F. Rizatdinova ,E. Rizvi , D.A. Roa Romero , S.H. Robertson , l , A. Robichaud-Veronneau , D. Robinson ,JEM Robinson , M. Robinson , A. Robson , J.G. Rocha de Lima , C. Roda , ,D. Roda Dos Santos , S. Rodier , D. Rodriguez , Y. Rodriguez Garcia , A. Roe , S. Roe ,O. Røhne , V. Rojo , S. Rolli , A. Romaniouk , V.M. Romanov , G. Romeo ,D. Romero Maltrana , L. Roos , E. Ros , S. Rosati , G.A. Rosenbaum , E.I. Rosenberg ,P.L. Rosendahl , L. Rosselet , V. Rossetti , E. Rossi , , L.P. Rossi , L. Rossi , ,M. Rotaru , J. Rothberg , I. Rottl¨ander , D. Rousseau , C.R. Royon , A. Rozanov ,Y. Rozen , X. Ruan , B. Ruckert , N. Ruckstuhl , V.I. Rud , G. Rudolph , F. R¨uhr ,F. Ruggieri , A. Ruiz-Martinez , E. Rulikowska-Zarebska , V. Rumiantsev , ∗ , L. Rumyantsev ,K. Runge , O. Runolfsson , Z. Rurikova , N.A. Rusakovich , D.R. Rust , J.P. Rutherfoord ,C. Ruwiedel , P. Ruzicka , Y.F. Ryabov , V. Ryadovikov , P. Ryan , G. Rybkin , S. Rzaeva ,A.F. Saavedra , I. Sadeh , H.F-W. Sadrozinski , R. Sadykov , F. Safai Tehrani , ,H. Sakamoto , P. Sala , G. Salamanna , A. Salamon , M. Saleem , D. Salihagic ,A. Salnikov , J. Salt , B.M. Salvachua Ferrando , D. Salvatore , , F. Salvatore , A. Salvucci ,A. Salzburger , D. Sampsonidis , B.H. Samset , H. Sandaker , H.G. Sander , M.P. Sanders ,M. Sandhoff , P. Sandhu , T. Sandoval , R. Sandstroem , S. Sandvoss , D.P.C. Sankey ,B. Sanny , A. Sansoni , C. Santamarina Rios , C. Santoni , R. Santonico , , H. Santos ,J.G. Saraiva , s , T. Sarangi , E. Sarkisyan-Grinbaum , F. Sarri , , G. Sartisohn , O. Sasaki ,T. Sasaki , N. Sasao , I. Satsounkevitch , G. Sauvage , P. Savard , h , A.Y. Savine , V. Savinov ,easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 45P. Savva , L. Sawyer , an , D.H. Saxon , L.P. Says , C. Sbarra , , A. Sbrizzi , , O. Scallon ,D.A. Scannicchio , J. Schaarschmidt , P. Schacht , U. Sch¨afer , S. Schaetzel , A.C. Schaffer ,D. Schaile , M. Schaller , R.D. Schamberger , A.G. Schamov , V. Scharf , V.A. Schegelsky ,D. Scheirich , M. Schernau , M.I. Scherzer , C. Schiavi , , J. Schieck , M. Schioppa , ,S. Schlenker , J.L. Schlereth , E. Schmidt , M.P. Schmidt , ∗ , K. Schmieden , C. Schmitt ,M. Schmitz , R.C. Scholte , A. Sch¨oning , M. Schott , D. Schouten , J. Schovancova ,M. Schram , A. Schreiner , C. Schroeder , N. Schroer , M. Schroers , D. Schroff , S. Schuh ,G. Schuler , J. Schultes , H.-C. Schultz-Coulon , J.W. Schumacher , M. Schumacher ,B.A. Schumm , Ph. Schune , C. Schwanenberger , A. Schwartzman , D. Schweiger ,Ph. Schwemling , R. Schwienhorst , R. Schwierz , J. Schwindling , W.G. Scott , J. Searcy ,E. Sedykh , E. Segura , S.C. Seidel , A. Seiden , F. Seifert , J.M. Seixas , G. Sekhniaidze ,D.M. Seliverstov , B. Sellden , G. Sellers , M. Seman , N. Semprini-Cesari , , C. Serfon ,L. Serin , R. Seuster , H. Severini , M.E. Sevior , A. Sfyrla , E. Shabalina , M. Shamim ,L.Y. Shan , J.T. Shank , Q.T. Shao , M. Shapiro , P.B. Shatalov , L. Shaver , C. Shaw ,K. Shaw , D. Sherman , P. Sherwood , A. Shibata , P. Shield , S. Shimizu , M. Shimojima ,T. Shin , A. Shmeleva , M.J. Shochet , M.A. Shupe , P. Sicho , A. Sidoti , A. Siebel ,F Siegert , J. Siegrist , Dj. Sijacki , O. Silbert , J. Silva , ao , Y. Silver , D. Silverstein ,S.B. Silverstein , V. Simak , Lj. Simic , S. Simion , B. Simmons , M. Simonyan ,P. Sinervo , N.B. Sinev , V. Sipica , G. Siragusa , A.N. Sisakyan , S.Yu. Sivoklokov ,J. Sj¨olin , , T.B. Sjursen , L.A. Skinnari , K. Skovpen , P. Skubic , N. Skvorodnev ,M. Slater , T. Slavicek , K. Sliwa , T.J. Sloan , J. Sloper , V. Smakhtin , S.Yu. Smirnov ,Y. Smirnov , L.N. Smirnova , O. Smirnova , B.C. Smith , D. Smith , K.M. Smith ,M. Smizanska , K. Smolek , A.A. Snesarev , S.W. Snow , J. Snow , J. Snuverink ,S. Snyder , M. Soares , R. Sobie , l , J. Sodomka , A. Soffer , C.A. Solans , M. Solar ,J. Solc , E. Solfaroli Camillocci , , A.A. Solodkov , O.V. Solovyanov , R. Soluk ,J. Sondericker , N. Soni , V. Sopko , B. Sopko , M. Sorbi , , M. Sosebee , A. Soukharev ,S. Spagnolo , , F. Span`o , P. Speckmayer , E. Spencer , R. Spighi , G. Spigo ,F. Spila , , E. Spiriti , R. Spiwoks , L. Spogli , , M. Spousta , T. Spreitzer ,B. Spurlock , R.D. St. Denis , T. Stahl , J. Stahlman , R. Stamen , S.N. Stancu ,E. Stanecka , R.W. Stanek , C. Stanescu , S. Stapnes , E.A. Starchenko , J. Stark ,P. Staroba , P. Starovoitov , J. Stastny , A. Staude , P. Stavina , G. Stavropoulos , G. Steele ,E. Stefanidis , P. Steinbach , P. Steinberg , I. Stekl , B. Stelzer , H.J. Stelzer ,O. Stelzer-Chilton , H. Stenzel , K. Stevenson , G.A. Stewart , W. Stiller , T. Stockmanns ,M.C. Stockton , M. Stodulski , K. Stoerig , G. Stoicea , S. Stonjek , P. Strachota ,A.R. Stradling , A. Straessner , J. Strandberg , S. Strandberg , , A. Strandlie , M. Strang ,M. Strauss , P. Strizenec , R. Str¨ohmer , D.M. Strom , J.A. Strong , ∗ , R. Stroynowski ,J. Strube , B. Stugu , I. Stumer , ∗ , J. Stupak , P. Sturm , D.A. Soh , ap , D. Su , Y. Sugaya ,T. Sugimoto , C. Suhr , K. Suita , M. Suk , V.V. Sulin , S. Sultansoy , T. Sumida ,X.H. Sun , J.E. Sundermann , K. Suruliz , , S. Sushkov , G. Susinno , , M.R. Sutton ,Y. Suzuki , Yu.M. Sviridov , S. Swedish , I. Sykora , T. Sykora , R.R. Szczygiel ,B. Szeless , T. Szymocha , J. S´anchez , D. Ta , S. Taboada Gameiro , K. Tackmann ,A. Taffard , R. Tafirout , A. Taga , Y. Takahashi , H. Takai , R. Takashima , H. Takeda ,T. Takeshita , M. Talby , A. Talyshev , M.C. Tamsett , J. Tanaka , R. Tanaka , S. Tanaka ,S. Tanaka , Y. Tanaka , K. Tani , G.P. Tappern , S. Tapprogge , D. Tardif , S. Tarem ,F. Tarrade , G.F. Tartarelli , P. Tas , M. Tasevsky , E. Tassi , , M. Tatarkhanov , C. Taylor ,F.E. Taylor , G. Taylor , G.N. Taylor , R.P. Taylor , W. Taylor ,M. Teixeira Dias Castanheira , P. Teixeira-Dias , K.K. Temming , H. Ten Kate , P.K. Teng ,Y.D. Tennenbaum-Katan , S. Terada , K. Terashi , J. Terron , M. Terwort , x , M. Testa ,R.J. Teuscher , l , C.M. Tevlin , J. Thadome , J. Therhaag , T. Theveneaux-Pelzer , M. Thioye ,S. Thoma , J.P. Thomas , E.N. Thompson , P.D. Thompson , P.D. Thompson , R.J. Thompson ,6 The ATLAS CollaborationA.S. Thompson , E. Thomson , M. Thomson , R.P. Thun , T. Tic , V.O. Tikhomirov ,Y.A. Tikhonov , C.J.W.P. Timmermans , P. Tipton , F.J. Tique Aires Viegas , S. Tisserant ,J. Tobias , B. Toczek , T. Todorov , S. Todorova-Nova , B. Toggerson , J. Tojo , S. Tok´ar ,K. Tokunaga , K. Tokushuku , K. Tollefson , L. Tomasek , M. Tomasek , M. Tomoto ,D. Tompkins , L. Tompkins , K. Toms , A. Tonazzo , , G. Tong , A. Tonoyan , C. Topfel ,N.D. Topilin , I. Torchiani , E. Torrence , E. Torr´o Pastor , J. Toth , ak , F. Touchard ,D.R. Tovey , D. Traynor , T. Trefzger , J. Treis , L. Tremblet , A. Tricoli , I.M. Trigger ,S. Trincaz-Duvoid , T.N. Trinh , M.F. Tripiana , N. Triplett , W. Trischuk , A. Trivedi , aq ,B. Trocm´e , C. Troncon , M. Trottier-McDonald , A. Trzupek , C. Tsarouchas , J.C-L. Tseng ,M. Tsiakiris , P.V. Tsiareshka , D. Tsionou , G. Tsipolitis , V. Tsiskaridze , E.G. Tskhadadze ,I.I. Tsukerman , V. Tsulaia , J.-W. Tsung , S. Tsuno , D. Tsybychev , J.M. Tuggle ,M. Turala , D. Turecek , I. Turk Cakir , E. Turlay , P.M. Tuts , M.S. Twomey ,M. Tylmad , , M. Tyndel , D. Typaldos , H. Tyrvainen , E. Tzamarioudaki , G. Tzanakos ,K. Uchida , I. Ueda , R. Ueno , M. Ugland , M. Uhlenbrock , M. Uhrmacher , F. Ukegawa ,G. Unal , D.G. Underwood , A. Undrus , G. Unel , Y. Unno , D. Urbaniec , E. Urkovsky ,P. Urquijo , ar , P. Urrejola , G. Usai , M. Uslenghi , , L. Vacavant , V. Vacek , B. Vachon ,S. Vahsen , C. Valderanis , J. Valenta , P. Valente , S. Valentinetti , , S. Valkar ,E. Valladolid Gallego , S. Vallecorsa , J.A. Valls Ferrer , R. Van Berg , H. van der Graaf ,E. van der Kraaij , E. van der Poel , D. van der Ster , B. Van Eijk , N. van Eldik ,P. van Gemmeren , Z. van Kesteren , I. van Vulpen , W. Vandelli , G. Vandoni , A. Vaniachine ,P. Vankov , F. Vannucci , F. Varela Rodriguez , R. Vari , E.W. Varnes , D. Varouchas ,A. Vartapetian , K.E. Varvell , L. Vasilyeva , V.I. Vassilakopoulos , F. Vazeille , G. Vegni , ,J.J. Veillet , C. Vellidis , F. Veloso , R. Veness , S. Veneziano , A. Ventura , ,D. Ventura , S. Ventura , M. Venturi , N. Venturi , V. Vercesi , M. Verducci , W. Verkerke ,J.C. Vermeulen , L. Vertogardov , M.C. Vetterli , h , I. Vichou , T. Vickey , as ,G.H.A. Viehhauser , S. Viel , M. Villa , , E.G. Villani , M. Villaplana Perez , E. Vilucchi ,M.G. Vincter , E. Vinek , V.B. Vinogradov , M. Virchaux , ∗ , S. Viret , J. Virzi , A. Vitale , ,O. Vitells , I. Vivarelli , F. Vives Vaque , S. Vlachos , M. Vlasak , N. Vlasov , A. Vogel ,P. Vokac , M. Volpi , G. Volpini , H. von der Schmitt , J. von Loeben , H. von Radziewski ,E. von Toerne , V. Vorobel , A.P. Vorobiev , V. Vorwerk , M. Vos , R. Voss , T.T. Voss ,J.H. Vossebeld , A.S. Vovenko , N. Vranjes , M. Vranjes Milosavljevic , V. Vrba ,M. Vreeswijk , T. Vu Anh , D. Vudragovic , R. Vuillermet , I. Vukotic , W. Wagner ,P. Wagner , H. Wahlen , J. Walbersloh , J. Walder , R. Walker , W. Walkowiak , R. Wall ,P. Waller , C. Wang , H. Wang , J. Wang , J.C. Wang , S.M. Wang , A. Warburton ,C.P. Ward , M. Warsinsky , R. Wastie , P.M. Watkins , A.T. Watson , M.F. Watson ,G. Watts , S. Watts , A.T. Waugh , B.M. Waugh , M. Webel , J. Weber , M. Weber ,M.S. Weber , P. Weber , A.R. Weidberg , J. Weingarten , C. Weiser , H. Wellenstein ,P.S. Wells , M. Wen , T. Wenaus , S. Wendler , Z. Weng , at , T. Wengler , S. Wenig ,N. Wermes , M. Werner , P. Werner , M. Werth , U. Werthenbach , M. Wessels , K. Whalen ,S.J. Wheeler-Ellis , S.P. Whitaker , A. White , M.J. White , S. White , S.R. Whitehead ,D. Whiteson , D. Whittington , F. Wicek , D. Wicke , F.J. Wickens , W. Wiedenmann ,M. Wielers , P. Wienemann , C. Wiglesworth , L.A.M. Wiik , A. Wildauer , M.A. Wildt , x ,I. Wilhelm , H.G. Wilkens , J.Z. Will , E. Williams , H.H. Williams , W. Willis , S. Willocq ,J.A. Wilson , M.G. Wilson , A. Wilson , I. Wingerter-Seez , S. Winkelmann , F. Winklmeier ,M. Wittgen , M.W. Wolter , H. Wolters , i , B.K. Wosiek , J. Wotschack , M.J. Woudstra ,K. Wraight , C. Wright , D. Wright , B. Wrona , S.L. Wu , X. Wu , J. Wuestenfeld ,E. Wulf , R. Wunstorf , B.M. Wynne , L. Xaplanteris , S. Xella , S. Xie , Y. Xie , C. Xu ,D. Xu , G. Xu , N. Xu , B. Yabsley , M. Yamada , A. Yamamoto , K. Yamamoto ,S. Yamamoto , T. Yamamura , J. Yamaoka , T. Yamazaki , Y. Yamazaki , Z. Yan , H. Yang ,S. Yang , U.K. Yang , Y. Yang , Y. Yang , Z. Yang , , S. Yanush , W-M. Yao , Y. Yao ,easurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 47Y. Yasu , J. Ye , S. Ye , M. Yilmaz , R. Yoosoofmiya , K. Yorita , H. Yoshida , au , R. Yoshida ,C. Young , S.P. Youssef , D. Yu , J. Yu , J. Yu , av , J. Yuan , L. Yuan , aw , A. Yurkewicz ,V.G. Zaets , R. Zaidan , A.M. Zaitsev , Z. Zajacova , Yo.K. Zalite , V. Zambrano ,L. Zanello , , P. Zarzhitsky , A. Zaytsev , M. Zdrazil , C. Zeitnitz , M. Zeller ,P.F. Zema , A. Zemla , C. Zendler , A.V. Zenin , O. Zenin , T. Zenis , Z. Zenonos , ,S. Zenz , D. Zerwas , G. Zevi della Porta , Z. Zhan , H. Zhang , J. Zhang , Q. Zhang ,X. Zhang , L. Zhao , T. Zhao , Z. Zhao , A. Zhemchugov , S. Zheng , J. Zhong , ax ,B. Zhou , N. Zhou , Y. Zhou , C.G. Zhu , H. Zhu , Y. Zhu , X. Zhuang , V. Zhuravlov ,B. Zilka , R. Zimmermann , S. Zimmermann , S. Zimmermann , M. Ziolkowski , R. Zitoun ,L. ˇZivkovi´c , V.V. Zmouchko , ∗ , G. Zobernig , A. Zoccoli , , Y. Zolnierowski , A. Zsenei ,M. zur Nedden , V. Zutshi . University at Albany, 1400 Washington Ave, Albany, NY 12222, United States of America University of Alberta, Department of Physics, Centre for Particle Physics, Edmonton, AB T6G 2G7,Canada Ankara University ( a ) , Faculty of Sciences, Department of Physics, TR 061000 Tandogan, Ankara;Dumlupinar University ( b ) , Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Physics, Kutahya; GaziUniversity ( c ) , Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Physics, 06500, Teknikokullar, Ankara;TOBB University of Economics and Technology ( d ) , Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of Physics,06560, Sogutozu, Ankara; Turkish Atomic Energy Authority ( e ) , 06530, Lodumlu, Ankara, Turkey LAPP, Universit´e de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, Annecy-le-Vieux, France Argonne National Laboratory, High Energy Physics Division, 9700 S. Cass Avenue, Argonne IL60439, United States of America University of Arizona, Department of Physics, Tucson, AZ 85721, United States of America The University of Texas at Arlington, Department of Physics, Box 19059, Arlington, TX 76019,United States of America University of Athens, Nuclear & Particle Physics, Department of Physics, Panepistimiopouli,Zografou, GR 15771 Athens, Greece National Technical University of Athens, Physics Department, 9-Iroon Polytechniou, GR 15780Zografou, Greece Institute of Physics, Azerbaijan Academy of Sciences, H. Javid Avenue 33, AZ 143 Baku, Azerbaijan Institut de F´ısica d’Altes Energies, IFAE, Edifici Cn, Universitat Aut`onoma de Barcelona, ES -08193 Bellaterra (Barcelona), Spain University of Belgrade ( a ) , Institute of Physics, P.O. Box 57, 11001 Belgrade; Vinca Institute ofNuclear Sciences ( b ) M. Petrovica Alasa 12-14, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia, Serbia University of Bergen, Department for Physics and Technology, Allegaten 55, NO - 5007 Bergen,Norway Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and University of California, Physics Division,MS50B-6227, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States of America Humboldt University, Institute of Physics, Berlin, Newtonstr. 15, D-12489 Berlin, Germany University of Bern, Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics, Laboratory for High EnergyPhysics, Sidlerstrasse 5, CH - 3012 Bern, Switzerland University of Birmingham, School of Physics and Astronomy, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT,United Kingdom Bogazici University ( a ) , Faculty of Sciences, Department of Physics, TR - 80815 Bebek-Istanbul;Dogus University ( b ) , Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of Physics, 34722, Kadikoy, Istanbul; ( c ) Gaziantep University, Faculty of Engineering, Department of Physics Engineering, 27310,Sehitkamil, Gaziantep, Turkey; Istanbul Technical University ( d ) , Faculty of Arts and Sciences,Department of Physics, 34469, Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey INFN Sezione di Bologna ( a ) ; Universit`a di Bologna, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , viale C. Berti Pichat,8 The ATLAS Collaboration6/2, IT - 40127 Bologna, Italy University of Bonn, Physikalisches Institut, Nussallee 12, D - 53115 Bonn, Germany Boston University, Department of Physics, 590 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, UnitedStates of America Brandeis University, Department of Physics, MS057, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02454, UnitedStates of America Universidade Federal do Rio De Janeiro, COPPE/EE/IF ( a ) , Caixa Postal 68528, Ilha do Fundao, BR- 21945-970 Rio de Janeiro; ( b ) Universidade de Sao Paulo, Instituto de Fisica, R.do Matao Trav. R.187,Sao Paulo - SP, 05508 - 900, Brazil Brookhaven National Laboratory, Physics Department, Bldg. 510A, Upton, NY 11973, United Statesof America National Institute of Physics and Nuclear Engineering ( a ) Bucharest-Magurele, Str. Atomistilor 407,P.O. Box MG-6, R-077125, Romania; University Politehnica Bucharest ( b ) , Rectorat - AN 001, 313Splaiul Independentei, sector 6, 060042 Bucuresti; West University ( c ) in Timisoara, Bd. Vasile Parvan4, Timisoara, Romania Universidad de Buenos Aires, FCEyN, Dto. Fisica, Pab I - C. Universitaria, 1428 Buenos Aires,Argentina University of Cambridge, Cavendish Laboratory, J J Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UnitedKingdom Carleton University, Department of Physics, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa ON K1S 5B6, Canada CERN, CH - 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland University of Chicago, Enrico Fermi Institute, 5640 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637, UnitedStates of America Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile, Facultad de Fisica, Departamento de Fisica ( a ) , Avda.Vicuna Mackenna 4860, San Joaquin, Santiago; Universidad T´ecnica Federico Santa Mar´ıa,Departamento de F´ısica ( b ) , Avda. Esp˜ana 1680, Casilla 110-V, Valpara´ıso, Chile Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences ( a ) , P.O. Box 918, 19 Yuquan Road,Shijing Shan District, CN - Beijing 100049; University of Science & Technology of China (USTC),Department of Modern Physics ( b ) , Hefei, CN - Anhui 230026; Nanjing University, Department ofPhysics ( c ) , Nanjing, CN - Jiangsu 210093; Shandong University, High Energy Physics Group ( d ) , Jinan,CN - Shandong 250100, China Laboratoire de Physique Corpusculaire, Clermont Universit´e, Universit´e Blaise Pascal,CNRS/IN2P3, FR - 63177 Aubiere Cedex, France Columbia University, Nevis Laboratory, 136 So. Broadway, Irvington, NY 10533, United States ofAmerica University of Copenhagen, Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK - 2100 Kobenhavn 0, Denmark INFN Gruppo Collegato di Cosenza ( a ) ; Universit`a della Calabria, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , IT-87036Arcavacata di Rende, Italy Faculty of Physics and Applied Computer Science of the AGH-University of Science andTechnology, (FPACS, AGH-UST), al. Mickiewicza 30, PL-30059 Cracow, Poland The Henryk Niewodniczanski Institute of Nuclear Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, ul.Radzikowskiego 152, PL - 31342 Krakow, Poland Southern Methodist University, Physics Department, 106 Fondren Science Building, Dallas, TX75275-0175, United States of America University of Texas at Dallas, 800 West Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75080-3021, United Statesof America DESY, Notkestr. 85, D-22603 Hamburg and Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany TU Dortmund, Experimentelle Physik IV, DE - 44221 Dortmund, Germany Technical University Dresden, Institut f¨ur Kern- und Teilchenphysik, Zellescher Weg 19, D-01069Dresden, Germanyeasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 49 Duke University, Department of Physics, Durham, NC 27708, United States of America University of Edinburgh, School of Physics & Astronomy, James Clerk Maxwell Building, TheKings Buildings, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, United Kingdom Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt; Johannes Gutenbergstrasse 3 AT - 2700 Wiener Neustadt, Austria INFN Laboratori Nazionali di Frascati, via Enrico Fermi 40, IT-00044 Frascati, Italy Albert-Ludwigs-Universit¨at, Fakult¨at f¨ur Mathematik und Physik, Hermann-Herder Str. 3, D - 79104Freiburg i.Br., Germany Universit´e de Gen`eve, Section de Physique, 24 rue Ernest Ansermet, CH - 1211 Geneve 4,Switzerland INFN Sezione di Genova ( a ) ; Universit`a di Genova, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , via Dodecaneso 33, IT -16146 Genova, Italy Institute of Physics of the Georgian Academy of Sciences, 6 Tamarashvili St., GE - 380077 Tbilisi;Tbilisi State University, HEP Institute, University St. 9, GE - 380086 Tbilisi, Georgia Justus-Liebig-Universit¨at Giessen, II Physikalisches Institut, Heinrich-Buff Ring 16, D-35392Giessen, Germany University of Glasgow, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom Georg-August-Universit¨at, II. Physikalisches Institut, Friedrich-Hund Platz 1, D-37077 G¨ottingen,Germany Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie, CNRS/IN2P3, Universit´e Joseph Fourier,INPG, 53 avenue des Martyrs, FR - 38026 Grenoble Cedex, France Hampton University, Department of Physics, Hampton, VA 23668, United States of America Harvard University, Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology, 18 Hammond Street,Cambridge, MA 02138, United States of America Ruprecht-Karls-Universit¨at Heidelberg: Kirchhoff-Institut f¨ur Physik ( a ) , Im Neuenheimer Feld 227,D-69120 Heidelberg; Physikalisches Institut ( b ) , Philosophenweg 12, D-69120 Heidelberg; ZITIRuprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg ( c ) , Lehrstuhl f¨ur Informatik V, B6, 23-29, DE - 68131Mannheim, Germany Hiroshima University, Faculty of Science, 1-3-1 Kagamiyama, Higashihiroshima-shi, JP - Hiroshima739-8526, Japan Hiroshima Institute of Technology, Faculty of Applied Information Science, 2-1-1 Miyake Saeki-ku,Hiroshima-shi, JP - Hiroshima 731-5193, Japan Indiana University, Department of Physics, Swain Hall West 117, Bloomington, IN 47405-7105,United States of America Institut f¨ur Astro- und Teilchenphysik, Technikerstrasse 25, A - 6020 Innsbruck, Austria University of Iowa, 203 Van Allen Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242-1479, United States of America Iowa State University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Ames High Energy Physics Group,Ames, IA 50011-3160, United States of America Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, JINR Dubna, RU - 141 980 Moscow Region, Russia KEK, High Energy Accelerator Research Organization, 1-1 Oho, Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki-ken 305-0801,Japan Kobe University, Graduate School of Science, 1-1 Rokkodai-cho, Nada-ku, JP Kobe 657-8501, Japan Kyoto University, Faculty of Science, Oiwake-cho, Kitashirakawa, Sakyou-ku, Kyoto-shi, JP - Kyoto606-8502, Japan Kyoto University of Education, 1 Fukakusa, Fujimori, fushimi-ku, Kyoto-shi, JP - Kyoto 612-8522,Japan Universidad Nacional de La Plata, FCE, Departamento de F´ısica, IFLP (CONICET-UNLP), C.C. 67,1900 La Plata, Argentina Lancaster University, Physics Department, Lancaster LA1 4YB, United Kingdom INFN Sezione di Lecce ( a ) ; Universit`a del Salento, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) Via Arnesano IT - 73100Lecce, Italy0 The ATLAS Collaboration University of Liverpool, Oliver Lodge Laboratory, P.O. Box 147, Oxford Street, Liverpool L69 3BX,United Kingdom Joˇzef Stefan Institute and University of Ljubljana, Department of Physics, SI-1000 Ljubljana,Slovenia Queen Mary University of London, Department of Physics, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UnitedKingdom Royal Holloway, University of London, Department of Physics, Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW200EX, United Kingdom University College London, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Gower Street, London WC1E6BT, United Kingdom Laboratoire de Physique Nucl´eaire et de Hautes Energies, Universit´e Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris 6),Universit´e Denis Diderot (Paris-7), CNRS/IN2P3, Tour 33, 4 place Jussieu, FR - 75252 Paris Cedex 05,France Fysiska institutionen, Lunds universitet, Box 118, SE - 221 00 Lund, Sweden Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, Facultad de Ciencias, Departamento de Fisica Teorica, ES -28049 Madrid, Spain Universit¨at Mainz, Institut f¨ur Physik, Staudinger Weg 7, DE - 55099 Mainz, Germany University of Manchester, School of Physics and Astronomy, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom CPPM, Aix-Marseille Universit´e, CNRS/IN2P3, Marseille, France University of Massachusetts, Department of Physics, 710 North Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA01003, United States of America McGill University, High Energy Physics Group, 3600 University Street, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T8,Canada University of Melbourne, School of Physics, AU - Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia The University of Michigan, Department of Physics, 2477 Randall Laboratory, 500 East University,Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1120, United States of America Michigan State University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, High Energy Physics Group, EastLansing, MI 48824-2320, United States of America INFN Sezione di Milano ( a ) ; Universit`a di Milano, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , via Celoria 16, IT -20133 Milano, Italy B.I. Stepanov Institute of Physics, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Independence Avenue68, Minsk 220072, Republic of Belarus National Scientific & Educational Centre for Particle & High Energy Physics, NC PHEP BSU, M.Bogdanovich St. 153, Minsk 220040, Republic of Belarus Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Physics, Room 24-516, Cambridge, MA02139, United States of America University of Montreal, Group of Particle Physics, C.P. 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville, Montreal,Quebec, H3C 3J7 , Canada P.N. Lebedev Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences, Leninsky pr. 53, RU - 117 924 Moscow,Russia Institute for Theoretical and Experimental Physics (ITEP), B. Cheremushkinskaya ul. 25, RU 117218 Moscow, Russia Moscow Engineering & Physics Institute (MEPhI), Kashirskoe Shosse 31, RU - 115409 Moscow,Russia Lomonosov Moscow State University Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics (MSU SINP), 1(2),Leninskie gory, GSP-1, Moscow 119991 Russian Federation, Russia Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit¨at M¨unchen, Fakult¨at f¨ur Physik, Am Coulombwall 1, DE - 85748Garching, Germany Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Physik, (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), F¨ohringer Ring 6, 80805 M¨unchen,Germanyeasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 51 Nagasaki Institute of Applied Science, 536 Aba-machi, JP Nagasaki 851-0193, Japan
Nagoya University, Graduate School of Science, Furo-Cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8602, Japan
INFN Sezione di Napoli ( a ) ; Universit`a di Napoli, Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche ( b ) , ComplessoUniversitario di Monte Sant’Angelo, via Cinthia, IT - 80126 Napoli, Italy University of New Mexico, Department of Physics and Astronomy, MSC07 4220, Albuquerque,NM 87131 USA, United States of America
Radboud University Nijmegen/NIKHEF, Department of Experimental High Energy Physics,Heyendaalseweg 135, NL-6525 AJ, Nijmegen, Netherlands
Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, and University of Amsterdam, Science Park 105,1098 XG Amsterdam, Netherlands
Department of Physics, Northern Illinois University, LaTourette Hall Normal Road, DeKalb, IL60115, United States of America
Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics (BINP), RU - Novosibirsk 630 090, Russia
New York University, Department of Physics, 4 Washington Place, New York NY 10003, USA,United States of America
Ohio State University, 191 West Woodruff Ave, Columbus, OH 43210-1117, United States ofAmerica
Okayama University, Faculty of Science, Tsushimanaka 3-1-1, Okayama 700-8530, Japan
University of Oklahoma, Homer L. Dodge Department of Physics and Astronomy, 440 WestBrooks, Room 100, Norman, OK 73019-0225, United States of America
Oklahoma State University, Department of Physics, 145 Physical Sciences Building, Stillwater, OK74078-3072, United States of America
Palack´y University, 17.listopadu 50a, 772 07 Olomouc, Czech Republic
University of Oregon, Center for High Energy Physics, Eugene, OR 97403-1274, United States ofAmerica
LAL, Univ. Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS, Orsay, France
Osaka University, Graduate School of Science, Machikaneyama-machi 1-1, Toyonaka, Osaka560-0043, Japan
University of Oslo, Department of Physics, P.O. Box 1048, Blindern, NO - 0316 Oslo 3, Norway
Oxford University, Department of Physics, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX13RH, United Kingdom
INFN Sezione di Pavia ( a ) ; Universit`a di Pavia, Dipartimento di Fisica Nucleare e Teorica ( b ) , ViaBassi 6, IT-27100 Pavia, Italy University of Pennsylvania, Department of Physics, High Energy Physics Group, 209 S. 33rd Street,Philadelphia, PA 19104, United States of America
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, RU - 188 300 Gatchina, Russia
INFN Sezione di Pisa ( a ) ; Universit`a di Pisa, Dipartimento di Fisica E. Fermi ( b ) , Largo B. Pontecorvo3, IT - 56127 Pisa, Italy University of Pittsburgh, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 3941 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA15260, United States of America
Laboratorio de Instrumentacao e Fisica Experimental de Particulas - LIP ( a ) , Avenida Elias Garcia14-1, PT - 1000-149 Lisboa, Portugal; Universidad de Granada, Departamento de Fisica Teorica y delCosmos and CAFPE ( b ) , E-18071 Granada, Spain Institute of Physics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Na Slovance 2, CZ - 18221 Praha8, Czech Republic
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Institute of Particle and NuclearPhysics, V Holesovickach 2, CZ - 18000 Praha 8, Czech Republic
Czech Technical University in Prague, Zikova 4, CZ - 166 35 Praha 6, Czech Republic
State Research Center Institute for High Energy Physics, Moscow Region, 142281, Protvino,Pobeda street, 1, Russia2 The ATLAS Collaboration
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Harwell Science andInnovation Campus, Didcot OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
University of Regina, Physics Department, Canada
Ritsumeikan University, Noji Higashi 1 chome 1-1, JP - Kusatsu, Shiga 525-8577, Japan
INFN Sezione di Roma I ( a ) ; Universit`a La Sapienza, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , Piazzale A. Moro 2,IT- 00185 Roma, Italy INFN Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata ( a ) ; Universit`a di Roma Tor Vergata, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) ,via della Ricerca Scientifica, IT-00133 Roma, Italy INFN Sezione di Roma Tre ( a ) ; Universit`a Roma Tre, Dipartimento di Fisica ( b ) , via della VascaNavale 84, IT-00146 Roma, Italy R´eseau Universitaire de Physique des Hautes Energies (RUPHE): Universit´e Hassan II, Facult´e desSciences Ain Chock ( a ) , B.P. 5366, MA - Casablanca; Centre National de l’Energie des SciencesTechniques Nucleaires (CNESTEN) ( b ) , B.P. 1382 R.P. 10001 Rabat 10001; Universit´e MohamedPremier ( c ) , LPTPM, Facult´e des Sciences, B.P.717. Bd. Mohamed VI, 60000, Oujda ; Universit´eMohammed V, Facult´e des Sciences ( d ) CEA, DSM/IRFU, Centre d’Etudes de Saclay, FR - 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
University of California Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz Institute for Particle Physics (SCIPP), Santa Cruz,CA 95064, United States of America
University of Washington, Seattle, Department of Physics, Box 351560, Seattle, WA 98195-1560,United States of America
University of Sheffield, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield S3 7RH,United Kingdom
Shinshu University, Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto-shi, JP -Nagano 390-8621, Japan
Universit¨at Siegen, Fachbereich Physik, D 57068 Siegen, Germany
Simon Fraser University, Department of Physics, 8888 University Drive, CA - Burnaby, BC V5A1S6, Canada
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford, California 94309, United States of America
Comenius University, Faculty of Mathematics, Physics & Informatics ( a ) , Mlynska dolina F2, SK -84248 Bratislava; Institute of Experimental Physics of the Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dept. ofSubnuclear Physics ( b ) , Watsonova 47, SK - 04353 Kosice, Slovak Republic ( a ) University of Johannesburg, Department of Physics, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg2006; ( b ) School of Physics, University of the Witwatersrand, Private Bag 3, Wits 2050, Johannesburg,South Africa, South Africa
Stockholm University: Department of Physics ( a ) ; The Oskar Klein Centre ( b ) , AlbaNova, SE - 10691 Stockholm, Sweden Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Physics Department, SE - 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden
Stony Brook University, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Nicolls Road, Stony Brook, NY11794-3800, United States of America
University of Sussex, Department of Physics and Astronomy Pevensey 2 Building, Falmer, BrightonBN1 9QH, United Kingdom
University of Sydney, School of Physics, AU - Sydney NSW 2006, Australia
Insitute of Physics, Academia Sinica, TW - Taipei 11529, Taiwan
Technion, Israel Inst. of Technology, Department of Physics, Technion City, IL - Haifa 32000, Israel
Tel Aviv University, Raymond and Beverly Sackler School of Physics and Astronomy, Ramat Aviv,IL - Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Faculty of Science, Department of Physics, Division ofNuclear & Particle Physics, University Campus, GR - 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece
The University of Tokyo, International Center for Elementary Particle Physics and Department ofPhysics, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, JP - Tokyo 113-0033, Japaneasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 53 Tokyo Metropolitan University, Graduate School of Science and Technology, 1-1 Minami-Osawa,Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan
Tokyo Institute of Technology, 2-12-1-H-34 O-Okayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8551, Japan
University of Toronto, Department of Physics, 60 Saint George Street, Toronto M5S 1A7, Ontario,Canada
TRIUMF ( a ) , 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 2A3; ( b ) York University, Department ofPhysics and Astronomy, 4700 Keele St., Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada
University of Tsukuba, Institute of Pure and Applied Sciences, 1-1-1 Tennoudai, Tsukuba-shi, JP -Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan
Tufts University, Science & Technology Center, 4 Colby Street, Medford, MA 02155, United Statesof America
Universidad Antonio Narino, Centro de Investigaciones, Cra 3 Este No.47A-15, Bogota, Colombia
University of California, Irvine, Department of Physics & Astronomy, CA 92697-4575, UnitedStates of America
INFN Gruppo Collegato di Udine ( a ) ; ICTP ( b ) , Strada Costiera 11, IT-34014, Trieste; Universit`a diUdine, Dipartimento di Fisica ( c ) , via delle Scienze 208, IT - 33100 Udine, Italy University of Illinois, Department of Physics, 1110 West Green Street, Urbana, Illinois 61801,United States of America
University of Uppsala, Department of Physics and Astronomy, P.O. Box 516, SE -751 20 Uppsala,Sweden
Instituto de F´ısica Corpuscular (IFIC) Centro Mixto UVEG-CSIC, Apdo. 22085 ES-46071Valencia, Dept. F´ısica At. Mol. y Nuclear; Dept. Ing. Electr´onica; Univ. of Valencia, and Inst. deMicroelectr´onica de Barcelona (IMB-CNM-CSIC) 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
University of British Columbia, Department of Physics, 6224 Agricultural Road, CA - Vancouver,B.C. V6T 1Z1, Canada
University of Victoria, Department of Physics and Astronomy, P.O. Box 3055, Victoria B.C., V8W3P6, Canada
Waseda University, WISE, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-8555, Japan
The Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Particle Physics, P.O. Box 26, IL - 76100Rehovot, Israel
University of Wisconsin, Department of Physics, 1150 University Avenue, WI 53706 Madison,Wisconsin, United States of America
Julius-Maximilians-University of W¨urzburg, Physikalisches Institute, Am Hubland, 97074W¨urzburg, Germany
Bergische Universit¨at, Fachbereich C, Physik, Postfach 100127, Gauss-Strasse 20, D- 42097Wuppertal, Germany
Yale University, Department of Physics, PO Box 208121, New Haven CT, 06520-8121, UnitedStates of America
Yerevan Physics Institute, Alikhanian Brothers Street 2, AM - 375036 Yerevan, Armenia
ATLAS-Canada Tier-1 Data Centre, TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2A3,Canada
GridKA Tier-1 FZK, Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe GmbH, Steinbuch Centre for Computing (SCC),Hermann-von-Helmholtz-Platz 1, 76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany
Port d’Informacio Cientifica (PIC), Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB), Edifici D, E-08193Bellaterra, Spain
Centre de Calcul CNRS/IN2P3, Domaine scientifique de la Doua, 27 bd du 11 Novembre 1918,69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
INFN-CNAF, Viale Berti Pichat 6/2, 40127 Bologna, Italy
Nordic Data Grid Facility, NORDUnet A/S, Kastruplundgade 22, 1, DK-2770 Kastrup, Denmark
SARA Reken- en Netwerkdiensten, Science Park 121, 1098 XG Amsterdam, Netherlands4 The ATLAS Collaboration
Academia Sinica Grid Computing, Institute of Physics, Academia Sinica, No.128, Sec. 2, AcademiaRd., Nankang, Taipei, Taiwan 11529, Taiwan
UK-T1-RAL Tier-1, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Science and Technology Facilities Council,Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
RHIC and ATLAS Computing Facility, Physics Department, Building 510, Brookhaven NationalLaboratory, Upton, New York 11973, United States of America a Also at LIP, Portugal b Present address FermiLab, USA c Also at Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal d Also at CPPM, Marseille, France. e Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada f Also at FPACS, AGH-UST, Cracow, Poland g Now at Universita’ dell’Insubria, Dipartimento di Fisica e Matematica h Also at TRIUMF, Vancouver, Canada i Also at Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, Portugal j Now at CERN k Also at Universit`a di Napoli Parthenope, Napoli, Italy l Also at Institute of Particle Physics (IPP), Canada m Also at Universit`a di Napoli Parthenope, via A. Acton 38, IT - 80133 Napoli, Italy n Louisiana Tech University, 305 Wisteria Street, P.O. Box 3178, Ruston, LA 71272, United States ofAmerica o Also at Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal p At California State University, Fresno, USA q Also at TRIUMF, 4004 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, B.C. V6T 2A3, Canada r Currently at Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori IUSS, Pavia, Italy s Also at Faculdade de Ciencias, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal and at Centro de Fisica Nuclear daUniversidade de Lisboa, Portugal t Also at FPACS, AGH-UST, Cracow, Poland u Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA v Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USA w Also at University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada x Also at Institut f¨ur Experimentalphysik, Universit¨at Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany y Now at Chonnam National University, Chonnam, Korea 500-757 z Also at Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Gatchina, Russia aa Also at Institut f¨ur Experimentalphysik, Universit¨at Hamburg, Luruper Chaussee 149, 22761Hamburg, Germany ab Also at School of Physics and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, China ac Also at School of Physics, Shandong University, Jinan, China ad Also at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, USA ae Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot, UK a f
Also at school of physics, Shandong University, Jinan ag Also at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, Didcot , UK ah Now at KEK ai Also at Departamento de Fisica, Universidade de Minho, Portugal a j
University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA ak Also at KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary al University of South Carolina, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, 700 S. Main St, Columbia, SC 29208,United States of America am Also at Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University, Cracow, Poland an Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, USAeasurement of the W → (cid:96) ν and Z / γ ∗ → (cid:96)(cid:96) production cross sections in proton- . . . 55 ao Also at Centro de Fisica Nuclear da Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal ap Also at School of Physics and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan aq University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA ar Transfer to LHCb 31.01.2010 as Also at Oxford University, Department of Physics, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, OxfordOX1 3RH, United Kingdom at Also at school of physics and engineering, Sun Yat-sen University au Naruto University of Education, Tokushima, Japan av Also at CEA aw Also at LPNHE, Paris, France ax Also at Nanjing University, China ∗∗